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 Businesses Move To the Cloud: They Hate IT

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the or-they-strike-a-deal-with-the-empire dept.

Cloud 538

jfruhlinger writes "Cloud services can be unreliable and pricey, and they often duplicate capabilities larger companies already have in-house. So why do many managers within organizations use them? Partly because they don't want to deal with their own company's IT department. Getting a big project started is often such a politically fraught process that for many managers it's easier to simply write a check."

cancel ×


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

Duh (4, Insightful)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473868)

Guess what? No-one wants to deal with a department. They have business objectives they want to be able to achieve, and they want to pay for someone to deliver those as painlessly as possible, at the lowest cost possible. This is why they probably founded an IT Department. If that department is too slow or sluggish to deliver, they'll go elsewhere..."The Cloud" just offers them the chance to get what they want at a predictable, fixed cost...

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36473958)

So they'll "write a check" for the "cloud" service, but we are expected to provide whatever they want for free. I don't have a magic room where I keep equipment (and people) that I can pull out at the drop of a hat. Resources cost money, but they do not want to pay fr them wen the resources are internal, but can always find money to hire outsiders.

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474208)

Congrats! You've pretty much illustrated exactly what this article is about!

Think of yourself in terms of having a customer and your competition is the cloud. Do you think the "cloud" provider is rude and surly? Do you think that they push back and make it seem like this whole idea is putting them out and making their life harder? I'm pretty sure they cheerfully offer services and then negotiate a price. Might even buy you dinner.

Re:Duh (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474312)


OTOH, who usually cleans up any messes that happens with it? Who gets blamed if the cloud provider has an outage?

Re:Duh (3, Insightful)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474394)

The cloud service does, if you have SLA like you should.

But what comes to the article, I don't think it's just because everyone hates the deal with other departments. Some departments are nicer to deal with and some not. If you see what IT people say and do and how even we talk here on slashdot it might not be a surprise that we are not very pleasant people to deal with. It's something we as geeks should definitely try to improve. The common mindset seems to be "how could this idiot not know this??", while it's not their job to know it. We are there to help the other people to do their job too, after all.

Why More IT Profs Work for Cloud Vendors (1)

soloport (312487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474480)

"OTOH, who usually cleans up any messes that happens with it? Who gets blamed if the cloud provider has an outage?"

Precisely the stuff of why more IT professionals are moving to cloud vendors: Most people want to be seen as valuable contributors to the success of something.

So... Win, win?

Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

haystor (102186) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474284)

All too often provisioning a new server costs weeks of paperwork and a ton of man hours from both IT and the business dept. Or, they can clone a new server in 30 minutes. There is no simliar service offered by IT, especially at big companies.

IT may have rules and procedures in place for good reasons, but all too often those rules are followed in a passive aggressive manner to put IT in control of business, instead of the other way around. Requests must be submitted with the hope of them being granted. Departments should be stating business cases and needs and IT should be helping figure out how they can help accomplish these. Frequently, this is not how it works.

Too many places, a request is made and IT denies it, telling the user they don't need what they're asking for. No research, no effort given, just a flat, automatic "no." I had a virus scanner fighting with my build, preventing the build from getting done. While our dept. is getting billed by IT for things, they refused to do anything at all about our new inability to build our main program. They had their rules that allowed them to say "no" and leave it at that. So here we are getting billed (internally) for IT support and being treated like no company in the world would treat a client. That is why departments move to the cloud.

The stories from developers fighting with IT are endless and all of them are countered by the same basic fear card and the general statement that users are idiots. In my two years at AT&T, I probably had firewall exceptions turned off a dozen times. They didn't keep their record keeping straight and couldn't justify a port being open between two computers so they shut it down. They didn't notify anyone at all, they just close a port. It would take 30 seconds to look up the paper trail on firewall exceptions and call/email the owner. There is a general arrogance that we are on "their" systems and not that they are managing "our" systems.

Re:Duh (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474012)

Problem is they basically outsource their internal knowledge and open them way more to hacker attacks and also to failure.
I would be reluctant to move to a cloud no matter what. But given that they only see the money side of things they probably are not even remotely aware of the implications this can have.
All I can say is, go ahead shift your controlling and bookkeeping departement ot the lowest bidder no matter where it is located shove them over some money and dont care anymore thats basically what happens here and the results will be disastrous.

Re:Duh (1, Insightful)

cjohnson319 (2277614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474146)

Problem is they basically outsource their internal knowledge and open them way more to hacker attacks and also to failure. I would be reluctant to move to a cloud no matter what.

It's entirely possible that the cloud host has better security than an internal IT department. If a huge cloud host, like Salesforce, devotes more resources, expertise and time to their security, and has higher security standards than an internal IT department, what's the disadvantage of going with the cloud?

The Disadvantage is Clear (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474212)




Re:Duh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474232)

If a huge cloud host, like Salesforce, devotes more resources, expertise and time to their security, and has higher security standards than an internal IT department, what's the disadvantage of going with the cloud?

None. Hey wait, I see what you did there. Nice premise.

Sometimes the premise is that the cloud has worse security than the IT department.

And then the other 98% of the time, the relative security of the cloud vs internal is completely unknown and therefore can't be a factor in the decision. Management doesn't even understand how well their own IT department enforces security, and third parties are less well understood than that.

Re:Duh (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474326)

Hate to say it, but AC has one hell of a point here.

Re:Duh (1)

jsdcnet (724314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474400)

Amazon has a very nice page on AWS security you can read. []

Re:Duh (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474272)

This is true to a point.

OTOH, the Cloud does have some big, fat hazards - security and politics-wise. When you have a bunch of sales/accounting folks setting up something IT-centric, it usually comes around to bite them (*and* IT) in the butt.

I remember a previous job when HR decided all by themselves to contract a SaaS for payroll stuff. The HR department head kept bragging about how IT was now useless to them, that they could do whatever they wanted to. They hired an HRIS person specifically for the SaaS provider... ...that is, until the SaaS provider went to set things up, and asked where the ADFS servers were (for employee sign-on/information integration - this way they could see their payroll info at home as well as at work - a *major* selling point, politically). It was funny watching the same department head come crawling around, because suddenly he couldn't deliver what he bragged on. It wasn't funny because someone in IT had to quickly evaluate, then crap out money and bandwidth for two servers and a wad of SSL certs, and then spend time working out the kinks.

My wee story is minor. There are far worse out there, usually when the rogue department comes across outages (and thus can't deliver), security breaches (and because IT wasn't told about it, they usually they find out the hard way - after A/P starts screaming that money is being lost, or employees start seeing identity theft), and general goof-ups that cause a great big mess that IT has to suddenly clean up.

A strong IT department head/manager/CIO will cut that shit off at the knees politically, and make sure it all funnels through his department, or that he/she at least knows about it before it goes in. That, or at the very least he/she can make sure all other department heads know there's a big disclaimer: If you don't involve us, we ain't responsible for what happens to it. It's as simple as insuring the firewalls block things in *both* directions, and that users are fairly locked-down. That way if some schmoe in another department wants to start FTP'ing files or opening oddball ports, for the most part they'll have to come to IT to do it, and the IT folks can ask "why".

The best way to prevent such things though is to have three things:

* a responsive and agile IT department. Not always 100% possible, but at least do your level best to serve, not block.
* IT management worth a fsck, who will insure that most stupid things don't happen.
* push (and get) a simple policy: If we don't build it or endorse it, then it's *your* ass on the block when it breaks/explodes/whatever, not ours. This includes any failure to deliver something specifically from that cloud service due to any network/server outages on our end.

The last part is just as important, because it removes any political cover that rogue department heads might have.

(A thought - if you can't stop it politically, but wanted to go all BOFH on that rogue cloud service connection, a little QoS action that ratchets connections to those IP addys down to the speed of a 14k modem would be an excellent start... >:) )

Of course (5, Insightful)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473874)

Because their IT departments actually use the word "NO" when the managers want to do something stupid and retarded...

Re:Of course (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473932)

The manager's decision on how to approach the achievement of company objectives is IT's responsibility to follow. If they think it is 'stupid' or 'retarded,' it is not their job to say "no." They can disagree and explain in a well-documented, well-supported way why something should or should not be done, which would allow the manager to possibly change their decision. Or, the manager can say "too bad" and IT can follow orders like they are supposed to.

IT geeks do not run the company. They are there to provide service to the company, and to do as they are told.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

crashumbc (1221174) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473978)

No that is exactly the IT departments responsibility, just like your legal department's job is to tell the managers no when they want to do something illegal.

Re:Of course (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474100)

It's management's responsibility to hire IT guys that know how to keep up with what the business needs. If IT personnel can't keep up then maybe there needs to be a change.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

baptiste (256004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474158)

Exactly - because if the IT department explains the risks, but goes ahead anyway because 'they said so' and then it blows up - who gets blamed? The brain dead manager that wouldn't listen or the IT department because it was an 'IT project'. Even if you have extensive documentation backing up the warnings you gave, it's too technical' and at the high mgmt level all they hear is 'IT screwed up' and it was an IT project. One of the main reasons I got out of corporate IT management - chronic lack of funding and not being listened to when you gave realistic cost and time projections for what was asked for and you never could achieve 'success' only 'not failing'. Nobody cheers for the power company because they keep the lights on day in and day out, but when the power goes out, they're public enemy #1.

Re:Of course (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474282)

Comparing something that's just stupid with something *illegal* is just...well...stupid.

A company exists to make money. If an IT department is not helping to support that goal in some way, they need to be shown the door. I too have worked with IT departments who thought the company existed to serve them, not the other way around. And one of the finest moments in my career came a few years ago, when I got to watch a whole IT department take the "walk of shame" after the frustrated CEO finally cleaned house of the worthless lot of them. Almost the entire company turned out to watch them go. It was all we could do not to burst out into applause.

Re:Of course (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474002)

If it’s a hierarchy with said manager "in charge" of IT and everyone else, definitely.

If it's more horizontal, not always. And I think this is really the case the article refers to.

Re:Of course (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474020)

One of their responsibilities is also to do good for their company. The IT guys can lose their jobs over the manager's mistake. Has it suddenly become wrong to care that the place that employs you does not do stupid things?

Re:Of course (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474088)

I take it you've never worked in an organization that worked something like this:

Manager: "I need a perfect solution to the Traveling Salesman Problem - I just signed a 7-figure contract saying we'd provide that in 2 weeks."
IT: "There's no way to do this, we've got lots of papers and well-known theory that proves that this is a problem the best mathematical and scientific minds that have ever existed in the last 50 years aren't able to solve."
Manager: "Just get it done, ok? Look, there's a lot of money riding on this."

2 weeks later ...
Manager: "So where's that Traveling Salesman Problem solution I asked for?"
IT: "It's not ready yet. As I previously mentioned, it's a virtual impossibility."
Manager: "Keep at it - we can run over, it will penalize us in the contract a bit. Work overtime, stay in the office, do whatever else you need to do, until it's done."

4 weeks later ...
Manager: "So why isn't this Traveling Salesman Problem ready?"
IT: "As I previously mentioned, there's no way to do this."
Manager: "Your fired."

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474170)

Maybe your hypothetical IT person was fired for not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're".

Re:Of course (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474192)

If you work in a corporation with managers like that, you quit. You don't wait around to be fired. Additionally, there is no sane corporate structure that would allow an internal IT customer to be in a position to fire anyone outside their department.

I work in IT for a large corp, so I know how it goes. I've seen good customers and bad. But hyperbole doesn't help.

Re:Of course (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474226)

Well... there is plenty of insanity is corporate culture, so I am not sure your point is well taken.

Re:Of course (2)

Thruen (753567) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474332)

You're right, because finding work is easy, especially in IT. It's not like we have to worry about losing jobs to "the cloud" or anything...

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

cjohnson319 (2277614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474202)

Just as often, though, it goes:

Manager: I need a basic CRM setup so our regional sales people can get up-to-the-minute information on orders, as well as basic customer info.

IT: We're pricing this at $500,000 and a year to implement.

Manager: Nevermind, calling the cloud.

Re:Of course (1)

rmstar (114746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474230)

Well, in a case like this, the normal modus operandi is to send a mail to the manager with that content, and save it together with his answer for eventual buttock-covering needs. Then you take some off-the-shelf algorithm that produces an approximation, and provide that.

Most likely: the customer is happy, the manager is happy, you are happy.

Less likely: shit hits the fan, but you have your saved mails and come out reasonably unscathed.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474292)

I think you got fired for not knowing the difference between a contraction and a possesive pronoun.

Re:Of course (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474352)

Ah, you've failed to set your constraints correctly. Set N to a very low number and the traveling salesman problem can be solved. Of course that system isn't very useful, but hey ;-)

Also, sub-optimal solutions can be created that might work fine.

The biggest problem in IT has for a very long time been adequately setting customer expectations.

But for the scenario you presented, I agree with the other posts. Leaving is the best option.

Re:Of course (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474450)

Smart I.T. guy:

Day 1: Writes a flawed solution that's "close enough".
Day 2: Patches up his C.V., takes the frenetic chick from the staffing agency out for a nice power dinner.
Day 3-9: Sits on the product, prepares his colleague to take over responsibilities.
Day 10: Delivers the finished solution early in exchange for a bonus.
Days 11-21: Performs a dozen job interviews thanks to staffing agent.
Day 22: Starts a new job, leaving the idiot manager behind to deal with the fallout.

Of course there are less dramatic ways to deal with it, but if intelligence and forethought are not valued traits in your organisation, the only sane thing to do is walk. Management is supposed to be a two-way conversation, if that's not the case, then your manager doesn't deserve to have you on his team.

Re:Of course (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474468)

Well, yeah. I once was yelled at because I told a manager that IIS couldn't be installed on a HP/UX server. I tried to explain why as nicely and non-technical as possible but in the end he still couldn't accept the fact that IIS couldn't be installed on a HP/UX server. Then he went to my boss telling her how stupid and incompetent I was. Luckily she was a very good boss with good technical knowledge (although not on the geeky low level) and she just bursted into laugh.

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

surgen (1145449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474178)

IT geeks do not run the company. They are there to provide service to the company, and to do as they are told.

Hey IT, go break HIPAA for me. I don't care that you're going to be held personally legally responsible. Its your job to do what I say!

Re:Of course (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474372)

Let's not forget breaking SOX, SCADA...

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

derrickh (157646) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474004)

This is the exact attitude why managers like to avoid dealing with IT.

IT exists to help the rest of the company. Instead of saying 'NO', you need to figure out a way to say 'Yes' while solving the problems that make the request 'stupid and retarded'

Re:Of course (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474086)

It does exist "for the rest of the company." If your idea is bad (or contains delusional thinking in terms of technology) that should be pointed out because it affects everyone.

Re:Of course (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474162)

The problem is that if you never say "No". departments will be constantly re-inventing the wheel. Where I work a department was having a problem connecting between a PC that runs an instrument and data saved on the network. They had been told repeatedly that there were other instances of the same instrument elsewhere in the company that worked fine storing data on network shares. They went out and bought a NAS to connect directly to the instrument PC and put on the network. Their idea was to connect it to the instrument PC via USB like an external hard drive. The NAS they bought could not work that way. The day they received the NAS, they were unable to connect to the network at all from the instrument PC. It turns out that they had a bad network cable. The bad network cable was the cause of the problem they had been having. On of my co-workers spent 3 days figuring out how to make the NAS work for them (he ended up using a crossover cable to connect to the instrument PC, but he had to also confirm that the system would not violate any company security policies or present a risk to the company network security).

Re:Of course (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474448)

So the network cables aren't the domain of IT where you work?

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474388)

They don't like that either. I'm fond of the following analogy...

I'm IT. A professional. A part time project manager, systems administrator, user interface and documentation specialist. I am capable of doing limited structural engineering, but know that I should not. I can build you a protocol that will last while your business grows tenfold in size in two days, and warn you in advance when it's about to fall apart.

If you ask me to build you a flying pig, I can do so, and provide you with options for that project....

In decreasing cost order:

  -(1) You can pay billions for me to hire a staff of genetic engineers and start a twenty year project. If it fails, I'll still have a pig that can survive option #2 without the heart attack.
- (2)You can pay me a few million for a reusable jetpack. The pig will probably have a heart attack, but aside from recurring costs, it may be viable...
-(3) You can pay me a few hundred thousand for a single use rocket strapped onto a pig. This will probably be illegal, but if you pay to move me to an appropriate nation, we can talk...
-(4) You can pay me $50k for a pig wrapped in a blanket, shoved into a cannon and fired. It will not actually be will stay airborne for a brief period... The cannon may or may not be reusable depending on whether you opt for the "Iron" or "cardboard tube" model.

The pig and your property are only likely to survive the first choice, and results are likely not reproducible in the last. The extra order of magnitude between choices accomodates specialists, consultants, project managers and appropriate documentation for each expense...

The problem is people want to receive option 1 in the timeframe of option 3, with the investment of option 4.

I'm good. I'm not fucking jesus.

And *THAT* is the problem with management. Not that programmers say no, but that management wants actual miracles without budgeting, scheduling, or enabling even half of one.

Re:Of course (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474072)

Because the IT departments use the word "NO" when they don't understand the problem or it falls out of their own expertise.

Re:Of course (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474338)

I prefer to say "NO" when someone comes to me and asks for 4 high spec servers, several shelves of disks and a bucketful of licenses, tells me they've budgeted for £7,000 and that the business case has already been signed off so they're not going to be able to get any more money for it, oh and it needs to be in and working by the end of next week and they have no idea if the software will actually work with our existing infrastructure.

I'm a "can do" person; I've gone waaaay out of my way to help people with projects and systems they've wanted to implement, but there comes a point when you just have to turn around to tell people "NO". Go away, budget properly, verify compatibility, check hardware lead times - all of which I will help you to do if you ask - *then* come to me and ask me to implement it.

Re:Of course (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474098)

And because you IT monkeys are too fucking lazy or stupid to actually do your job. "How dare you expect me to bring you a new computer when it's my job to do so!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474148)

Yeah, except a lot of IT departments lose credibility when they force a solution because the CIO likes it.

As an example where I work - Encryption is required on all USB mass storage devices. TrueCrypt is not permitted, the CIO preferred a Kingston solution that made all sorts of claims (AES-256, FIPS-140, etc.) but had no external review or analysis of its architecture.

Guess what - it was the Kingston solution that got completely and totally compromised (Device trusted the host to authenticate passwords), while TrueCrypt has yet to have any compromises to data protection. (Some of their "plausible deniability" methods got compromised to the point where you could prove someone was using TC, but not to the point where any encrypted data was at risk to anything other than rubber-hose attacks.)

IT royally fucked up there...

Re:Of course (2)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474266)

Because their IT departments actually use the word "NO" when the managers want to do something stupid and retarded...

And because their IT departments actually use the word "NO" when the managers want to do something useful, productive, user-friendly, too. Too many CIOs think that the company exists to support their policies and staffs, rather than they exist to support business objectives and make the average employee more productive. I still think every CIO should be required to provide a charge number to all employees, to charge when that employee can't get his/her job done due to IT problems.

Re:Of course (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474290)

When the IT department says NO to something that is a core part of executing the companies business they DESERVE to be cut out.

Too many IT departments think there job is to stop things from happening.

Security is important, very important, but is is ABSOLUTELY NOT more important than running the business. That is the only job of the company.

If the IT department says no to a new system, the only thing left to do for a business that really needs that system is to try to do it some other way. And the cloud represents one option.

Now, before people flame me too much. There is another way. The best case is for the SA's and Security folks to work with the app developers to create the most secure, stable, and usable systems possible. Problem is, I can count the number of SA's and security folk I've met who act this way on less than one hand. Most seem to really love just saying NO.

Re:Of course (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474424)

It could also be because (they|we) say "Oh, that? Yeah we can make that two second change for you. It will take six weeks, and we'll need to ramp up three offshore development resources; as well as temporarily increase QA headcount to ensure we can perform a full regression. As soon as you run that through formal scoping, and get it slotted for a release we'll hop right on it for you."

Might work out great until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36473878)

they have altered the deal. Pray they do not alter it any further.

Companies Don't Like to... (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473880)

Companies don't like to eat their own dog food, no surprise there.

Re:Companies Don't Like to... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474026)

Your statement, while it may be generally true, has nothing to do with the article.

Re:Companies Don't Like to... (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474364)

Well ready from the article,

Since asking IT for something big is a political issue if it doesn't report to you or your business unit, it could very well save time (and the political capital they'd spend asking for things) for business managers to whip out a credit card instead of calling IT when they need something.

So it appears that 'eating their own dog food applies', if the business has an IT department that can/does not respond to their needs then they have no one else to blame but themselves.

To take this a bit further, I think managers that try farming this out are going to screw it up anyways. It is unlikely that they will have the knowledge to manage specifications or implementation of the final product and it will get dumped on the IT department anyways.

Seen it before and I don't expect that to change in the future considering how often the Peter Principal is still used.

I buy it. (3, Insightful)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473890)

Lots of people complain about security and reliability in the cloud. Who do you trust more. A system designed by our underpaid overworked IT staff that got their degree from DeVry? You Consultants that charge $250/man/hour who will be gone when the thing shits the bed? Or Google?

Re:I buy it. (2)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474032)

From a security standpoing always the internal stuff, given that the company is big enough the problem is you cannot even remotely be as secure as cutting a cord in the worst case :-)
Also think twice about pushing vital company data into something which is well known worldwide and accessible worldwide only protected by encryption to some degree and with security holes you have to rely on someone else to quick fix for you.
Good luck with calling google in 2am in the morning if you have a problem if you are not an ibm :-)

The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (0)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473894)

I've worked at 3 different companies in my career, and at each of them, IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit, and not the other way around.

IT needs to understand that it is a service organization with the mission of satisfying its customer by providing top notch service and support, and asking "how high?"

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474014)

I've worked at 3 different companies in my career, and at each of them, IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit, and not the other way around.

IT needs to understand that it is a service organization with the mission of satisfying its customer by providing top notch service and support, and asking "how high?"

Unfortunately, in the business world, IT (hardware, software, workers, and their benefits) are viewed as an
expense, rather than an asset. When something goes wrong, it's always the fault of IT (even if they had
nothing to do with it), and the next question is 'how long will it take to fix...'?

I remember a company had some serious issues with security, and it cost them a lot of money after the
fact. The owner and senior managers went to the IT department and demanded to know why this wasn't
addressed up front, the dept. manager pulled out some meeting minutes he kept and showed the group
'not approved'.

They walked out without saying another word. There is no reason to waste money in a organization, but
when your organization depends on it's IT department, perhaps they'd treat them better.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474328)

Thankfully the IT dept you mention had upper mgmt that had a clue. We inherited a legacy backup system that at best was 'shaky' and put in a request for a new backup infrastructure ($15K at the time). Denied. But researchers were generating MASSIVE amounts of data for our storage infrastructure. One day we experienced a triple disk failure (one disk failed, was replaced, and during the rebuild two more fell out of the array). This array was part of a multi-terabyte storage system. Go to the backups on the old legacy system and it cratered (testing was OK when we restored a files here and there to ensure it was working, but when we went for the full recovery, it blew sky high and revealed extensive catalog corruption) Cost us $25K to recover the data (OnTrack - amazing folks for data recovery). When the inevitable finger pointing kicked in, our dept was in the spotlight. When I showed everyone the budget request and subsequent rejection with notes highlighting our concerns with the existing system's reliability, guess whose job was eliminated within 4 months in a 'restructuring'? Wasn't the big boss who denied the capital request!

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474058)

What you say here is a situation I am sure that exists, but there is another side, too.

There are also very smart IT personnel who care about who they are working for and present opinions and warnings and never get listened to. Then, when something goes wrong, panicked people expect them to fix the mess (usually on their own without a net). This is a tough place to be, and when you have no power and all the responsibility you tend to get a bit cynical. In a lot of organisations the idea is still too recent. People often hate IT because they also become the realist in the situation, and the person with the great idea hates being told that it makes no sense or is impractical... but at the same time they become the people who "know computers" and can fix every problem. It's a bad conundrum that happens in too many places.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474078)

> IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit

That's mostly a big company problem, I think. I've worked for some small shops, 20 to 100 employees. The problem isn't bad there. We had one idiot IT guy try to tell our developers that they couldn't have root access to the machines. Guess what, sherlock: we *write drivers*. We bloody well will have root access, thank you.

That IT guy is no longer working for us. We have a new guy, and he's great - understands exactly what to do, and the whole place hums along because of what he does. You just have to find the right people. There are good ones. They're out there.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474404)

Correct. Truly great admins are literally worth their weight in gold.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474126)

I guess you didn't work within the IT departments you're slating so thoroughly.

In no walk of life is the customer always right. The customer is a petulant 6 year old who needs to be told what can and can't be done, and needs to learn what reasonable expectations are. I'm all for providing 1st class service to someone who knows what they're doing, but far too often I'm presented with someone who's been shovelled into a position of power with no experience or knowledge, and who is totally impressionable by vendor buzzword-laden marketing drivel.

Case in point; We just got a wireless network upgrade. I was told about it the day it happened, despite being the senior IT technical person on site. The kit is nice, but totally over priced and over spec'd for what we need, it's not configured properly, and the cabling was shoddy. The whole project came over 40% more expensive than if I had sourced the kit myself, and would have cost parts only if I was only asked if I could do the work needed. But instead, my manager goes over my head to the Boss and gets this thing signed off, the upgrade is done, and I'm left picking up the pieces from the botched job as she signed off on completion after being shown some flashing lights in a cab.

TL;DR: I exist for the company's benefit, but they'd better do what the hell I said needs doing if they want stuff to work right.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (4, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474200)

I've worked at 3 different companies in my career, and at each of them, IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit, and not the other way around.

IT needs to understand that it is a service organization with the mission of satisfying its customer by providing top notch service and support, and asking "how high?"

I've heard this exact phrase many times over the years, particularly from big-company alumni. This attitude is exactly why companies fail. The only way to be successful is for all members of the team to work together to make the company successful. If your organization fails to foster true collaboration at all levels, your organization blows.

It is human nature that everybody wants to be in control. Sales managers want to have everyone cater to their whims, marketing wants their ideas followed without question, even the guys over in finance want to have their ideas implemented across the board without discussion. Well, following that paradigm will get you nothing but failure.

In a properly functioning company there should be no division between IT and the business unit (and accounting and legal and etc.). Any challenge being faced by the business should be addressed by all members of the organization. If the sales team is having trouble increasing business and feels that a new web application would help, a multidisciplinary team from all aspects of the business should brainstorm the problem and come up with the best solution possible for the company as a whole. There may be accounting reasons for using cloud services that are brought to the table by the Finance guys, and a better technical solution might come from the IT staff.

Your "service organizations ask 'How High?'" idea leads to misguided projects that don't address the underlying problem and fail to grow the business. Any manager worth their salary should know that they are not the expert in everything and welcome input from all quarters.

Of course, at the end of the day someone has to make a final call. But the 'service organization' meme is a stupid relic of the 90's outsourcing craze and has no business in modern corporate life.

Re:The problem with IT.. well.. one anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474422)

I've worked at 3 different companies in my career, and at each of them, IT as an organization held the attitude that the company existed for their benefit, and not the other way around.

IT needs to understand that it is a service organization with the mission of satisfying its customer by providing top notch service and support, and asking "how high?"

Asking "how high?" is a TERRIBLE way to do IT. You start giving them whatever they want, and they next thing you know you've got people breathing down your neck about how much money you're spending etc.

IMO, IT should provide the equipment and services for the rest of their business to do their job, not fulfill their highest hopes and dreams.

Welcome Brothers! (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473902)

This has been happening to us in the software world for some time. It's purely a cost thing (imo), which "dealing with IT" is a factor of, but in general I think it is a lot simpler.

Need some software. Your options be:

- Pay a team of developers to design, build, and maintain the software you use. Advantage is you get exactly (or well, in theory anyway) what you want. Disadvantage is it can take time to get the bugs sorted out

- Buy something off the shelf which is close enough. Advantage is you get it right away, it is generally mature out of the box, and you don’t need to keep a bunch of guys around to sort out bugs. Additionally because they sell this software to hundreds of users, they can throw way more development resources as it than you ever could (ye old horizontal market). Disadvantage is you don’t get exactly the features you want, but even that is changing as stuff becomes more extendable and more companies offer “customization”.

Option 2 starts looking very good, with option 1 becoming more reserved for “weird” or original software that no one else has written. A depressing trend.

I suspect as this same thing happens with infrastructure, you will find the same. Most businesses use some external provider, and the “real IT” jobs are mainly at places providing infrastructure to others, or handling really unusual cases.

Re:Welcome Brothers! (3, Insightful)

cratermoon (765155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474140)

At its simplest, the build vs. buy decision is about competitive advantage. If a company needs some commodity IT service or function, it should buy the "good enough" product. If the company is looking to support and enhance whatever it is that company does that makes it unique and better than its competitors, build it in-house and get exactly the right thing.

Most of what "the cloud" does is commodity functions.

Re:Welcome Brothers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474384)

This has been happening to us in the software world for some time. This has been happening to us in the software world for some time.

Please allow me to add a small observation on this subject. In IT, especially in software development, we tend to screw ourselves by making us unnecessary. The cloud is one example: while some developers write software to make this cloud thing happen, many others become unnecessary and loose their jobs. Even those 'building' the cloud will probably become unnecessary when cheaper admins can handle the job.

Re:Welcome Brothers! (4, Insightful)

Cytotoxic (245301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474408)

There is another advantage to "off the shelf" software. Customization is difficult and expensive, so the incentive is to mold your business practice to fit the software. This can actually be a good thing. In many situations it can prevent time wasted reinventing the wheel.

If I was starting a mortgage business tomorrow, I'd buy an off-the-shelf mortgage origination package and design my entire business practice around the way the software works. This is because the mortgage industry is very mature, and the packages that exist address most business needs right out of the box.

I happen to work in an industry that has fewer than a dozen companies, worldwide. And really there are only a couple of major players. There is no off-the-shelf solution for our business model, so I've seen the 'build in house' model up close. It is fantastic for providing exactly what the business needs. Everything can be custom tailored to the exact demands of the business at that moment.

This is also a major weakness of this approach. When there are no limits to what you can do, well... there's no limits to what they can ask for. Smart people tend to be creative. So we end up getting a deluge of feature requests, a large majority of which won't actually help the business. If you can't say "no" on technical grounds you are left arguing on business needs - not the IT mission in the minds of most managers. So you end up building a lot of things that won't really help. In most real-world situations, off-the-shelf carries major advantages in terms of focusing the business on things that will grow the business.

God, I can sympathize (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473936)

Seriously, I would rather pull my own teeth than deal with my last company's IT people. Getting anything done through them was a nightmare. "Customer service" wasn't even a concept on their radar. "No" was the only word in their vocabulary. They had perfected a variation on "security through obscurity," which could best be characterized as "security through inaction." By not allowing anyone or anything on the system, they kept it secure. Here was a typical exchange:

Me: We've got a new program that's going to make the company a lot of money
Them: We can't do anything to help you. And if you try and go around us, we'll try to stop you.
Me: I just want to put up a simple html webpage with information on it.
Them: Can't do it. It's a security risk.

Re:God, I can sympathize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474248)

Wow...that's probably the worst example I've ever seen.

Re:God, I can sympathize (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474452)

Oh man, you have no idea. Our CEO ultimately fired almost the entire IT department in the end (and it was a beautiful day indeed). It was so bad that the first thing any manager told a new employee was "DO NOT EVER call the IT help desk." Seriously, if you called the IT help desk and asked for anything (or, even worse, dared to complain about something), they would run an "security audit" on your department and basically leave you without computers for at least a day or two. They were that bad. My first week on the job, they threatened to permanently ban me from the network because I missed a one-hour mandatory IT orientation class (and I only missed it because of an emergency that the CEO himself had ordered me to prioritize). I had to get the fucking CEO to call them and *order* them to put me back on the network.

Re:God, I can sympathize (2)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474380)

Its interesting to see the point of view from the other side of the fence. My experience has been exactly the opposite. Management quite often will make promises that their infrastructure cant deliver on. When IT says " we cant do it," its usually because management tends to be focused on nothing but their bottom line and refuses to invest in proper infrastructure. That is where the politics comes into play, IT generally could care less about the politics, we just want to get the job done with proper resources without having to bend over backwards and take one in the a** because some technophobe cfo doesnt want to sacrifice some numbers on his balance sheet. When will people realize that they need to work with IT and not against IT? Try it; you will find that things get done much more efficiently. Look at google, facebook, etc.

Re:God, I can sympathize (1)

delcielo (217760) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474406)

For what it's worth, I often see this scenario from the opposite perspective:

Them: We've got a new program that we chose on our own and requires customization and a lot of changes to our default security policies.
Me: It's not that easy, we have regulatory compliance issues to sort out, and the security policies are in place for a reason. You should have consulted us before you spent the money.
Them: I just want to do what I want to do, and you need to help me because I make money and you don't.
Me: That's exactly why we've ended up with all of these regulatory compliance issues, people just doing what they want. I wish it were different, too. I could be a lot more effective.
Them: I don't care about you. My wants are the only thing that matter.

"don't want to deal with their own IT dept." (1)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473942)

They then have to deal with someone else's IT department.

A customer/provider relationship is very different than supervisor/employee our interdepartmental one. The provider can choose to stop taking the customer's money and tell him to go away. Sure the customer can sue but in the meantime, he's got NO SERVICE.

Re:"don't want to deal with their own IT dept." (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474152)

They then have to deal with someone else's IT department.

Yes, and those people at Amazon, Google, Rackspace, etc are usually much more amenable to listening to the people they are providing service and are much more of a pleasure to work with then the typical internal IT monkey.

Re:"don't want to deal with their own IT dept." (1)

JustSomeProgrammer (1881750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474398)

But normally the provider wants your money and only takes away service for extreme abuses.

Unreliable and pricey? (1)

OpenYourEyes (563714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473944)

Newsflash. In-house IT departments can be unreliable and pricey too.

Answer Cloudy (4, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473946)

Different reasons for different sized businesses.

I moved my small corporation to "the cloud" because even though there have been outages (thoug not for us) in the cloud, it's still far more reliable than running a linux box in a neighborhood where PG&E apparently trips over their own power cords every month, and a UPS only buys the incompetents a short window to get it back up.

And it's cheaper and more reliable than colocing.

Has nothing to do with "hating IT" in our case. Hell, I am the IT guy in addition to all my other hats. Small businesses are like that.

I think we've identified the process loophole. (3, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473962)

Getting a big project started is often such a politically fraught process that for many managers it's easier to simply write a check.

There is no way the services provisioning and supply chain processes should allow line managers to sidestep corporate IT by merely writing a check. IT is failing in its critical mission to become the unavoidable middle man--the bill you have to pay--by not exercising its oversight over all purchasing decisions. It's the only way: every expenditure must have an IT sign-off to so that a grown-up can make sure IT isn't being left out, and attempting to acquire computing, storage, or communications facilities from anyone except IT must be an immediate termination offense.

Of course, IT must also make sure its firewalls and content protection systems keep the company's machines safely away from these rogue service providers unless the appropriate genuflections, prayers, and offerings are made to IT. An unsanctioned cloud provider contract is useless if the network won't let your systems connect to the service demarcation of the profider.

(Am I serious? Am I kidding? Am I both?)

Re:I think we've identified the process loophole. (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474280)

The thing is, I work at a company where my department was created after senior management decided to out source computer support (to a company that has a presence on site). We support about 5% of the PCs in the company. That 5% are the ones being used for the projects that directly impact the company's future bottom line. The departments we support contribute to our budget for supplying and replacing PCs. Yet, we spend a significant amount of time working with PCs that these departments bought directly from the vendors (at significantly greater cost to the department and significantly greater effort to get working with our network).

. . . we came in. (3, Interesting)

ccandreva (409807) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473980)

This reads like an article from circa 1980, just replace "Cloud" with "Personal Computer".

People didn't want to wait for access to the mainframe, they went to Radio Shack and bought a TRS-80, or whatever local store you had and picked up an Apple, CBM, random CP/M machine, etc.

Then more PCs showed up, they needed to share data, IT installed a network ...

Isn't this where . . .

Re:. . . we came in. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474446)

Isn't this where . . .

This is where we all run out and bought thumbdrives so that when we share files we aren't limited by the retarded 10mb email limit, we don't have to wait for the network if it is slow, and we don't have to pre-arrange a network share where we all have read/write permissions.

Not surprising (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36473990)

It got so bad in our office that our senior management paid money to build their own employee-managed network where management can set the IT policies. One of which is "developers and sys admins get admin rights on their own machines." The developers that I've seen who have to work on the corporate IT-managed network regularly curse whatever malevolent spirit controls our company at that level. We actually get work done.

Is really unreliable though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36473994)

Granted, I haven't really jumped on the bandwagon just yet.

However, given that some cloud providers are using redundant NetApp (or something else) sans, and several hypervisors available to take over the instance if the one you are on fails.

Unless you need a boatload of storage and computing capacity, I suppose for the same amount you pay for cloud service & a dedicated server /w raid, cloud service could be more reliable in practice.


Don't you just end up calling the Cloud dept? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474000)

you're just replacing one Dept. with another. I think it has to do more with cost. Cloud means the cheapest labor protected by the weakest laws. Plus Cloud means the blame can be placed outside the company.

Re:Don't you just end up calling the Cloud dept? (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474166)

Whoops our entire corporate data has been stolen.
Who is the blame? Sorry that was stolen from the cloud...
Who gave the order to give our data to a foreign company?
It is not so easy not to blame the person who was responsible for the cloud outsourcing.

Hello... IT... (4, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474184)

Have you tried turning off the Cloud, and turning it back on again?

Re:Don't you just end up calling the Cloud dept? (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474300)

That's looking at it the wrong way though. Stuff written for the cloud is intended to be portable and easy to move. If you outsource your cloud stuff, then you are dealing with businesses that are competing. There is motivation for the cloud company to service your needs - i.e. you need more stuff done, you pay for more services. You don't have the same motivation with an internal IT department.

Not a good long-term move (1)

PFactor (135319) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474016)

I work in the healthcare vertical. I've seen 2 major health systems attempt this form of outsourcing over the last few years. In both cases, the short-term cost savings were far outweighed over the long term by down times and a complete lack of true integration between the tech implementers and the business units (e.g. doctors and nurses).

This is the exact opposite of the experience detailed in TFA.

You think your IT is glacial? Try to get an IT org to move for you when they don't even work in the same company. Lawyers can sue to enforce the contract and all that, but by the time your case gets to court you've already lost your competitive advantage.

I was "all in" for a bit (4, Interesting)

weave (48069) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474060)

I was "all in" for a bit, was supporting the idea of moving an entire college's email system into one of these systems. We set up a pilot and due to a certain username transition going on with that company, it wiped out about 100 of our user's PERSONAL non-college data from the site because they had associated their college email address with the service in the past.

We begged and pleaded for help. They said they were looking into it. No updates. No promise to make it right. About 2-3 weeks after that, the user's data started to be restored. But I've never felt so helpless during that period. There was nothing I could do. It's a free service, so there wasn't much recourse either.

I have, or my staff have, in the past done some really stupid things that interrupted service or temporarily lost user data. But we were right on top of it, worked around the clock to fix it, and learned from the mistakes. It's a horrible feeling to lose a system but it's nothing compared to the hopeless feeling of losing user data in a system you have absolutely no control over.

Needless to say, the pilot opened our eyes.

True then, True now (2)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474106)

Below, in process flow format for non IT people. Businesses are afraid of Technology.

Fear -> Anger -> Hate -> The Cloud

Hell, I'm in IT and I moved to the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474120)

I'm the director of one part of IT at my company and I got tired of hearing "We can't support that". I've been doing pretty much everything in the cloud for a couple of years: it's simply not worth the effort to fight about server type, allowed languages, DBs, scripts and the like when I can buy space on a hosting site for virtually nothing. (And no, there are no security issues with the stuff I'm moving)

Even in the cloud though it's an issue: the biggest problems with the project moving over now is that there are security issues, and the workarounds I have to do to integrate our local systems with the cloud are annoying at best. We really need to move to some robust SSO solution- the collection of behind the firewall stuff we're doing now just isn't going to work much longer, but that's not my call.

True, but not IT's Fault (3, Insightful)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474122)

Getting a big project started is often such a politically fraught process that for many managers it's easier to simply write a check.

Yes, politics all too often come into play when trying to get a project off the ground and started, especially in IT. But it has more to do with the politicians and the manager than it does with the actual IT staff. And I am not sure how putting it in the cloud avoids the politics? Any project of significance has to be run up the flag pole in any IT situation.

I am a network engineer for a county government that has it's hooks into state and federal level networks. Our political party is currently republican. So needless to say they hate all democrats. Any democratic IT idea or project that is started is immediately met with HUGE levels of opposition, while any ideas from their side is met with opposition from the democrats. There are also many cases where one party will get elected to the actual city government, while the county officials are from another party, which makes working together sometimes impossible.

IT and networking department are usually the worker bees, taking orders from their manager and higher ups, who all report to politicians of some sort at some point in the creative process. Getting rid of IT departments isn't the answer. Get rid of the politicians!!! If we remove the politics from most things, they will run better and most likely take 1/2 the time, which will ultimately reduce the cost of projects in man hours alone.

"I am so incredibly incredible" (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474238)

I don't believe it.

Not Clever Enough (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474164)

They just can't cut it can they! They won't learn when their designs are ransacked by clever cloud computing wiz kids either. Stupid people learn to protect their self image by dissociating from the facts. It's always someone else's fault that it went bankrupt. It's time to hire brains not excuse makers.

Are these guys joking??? (1)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474180)

Let me see if I got this right: business managers are changing to Cloud SaaS infrastructures because their own IT departments don't give them new features fast enough?

So they expect a 3rd party supplier will be faster???

The word "Cloud" doesn't make it all magical, with faeries and pony's all over the place and quick response to changing requirements: if you start using software from a 3rd party supplier, Cloud or no Cloud, you better be a big enough customer that they're willing give you more than just the time of the day that your support contract entitles you to.

If you're going to the Cloud for the fast infrastructure rollout bit, software will still need to be developed by your IT department and oh, by the way, your infrastucture bills just went up 2-fold, 'cause the cloud provider needs their profit (and now that you've spent $$$ in making software for their cloud, they have you by the balls), your network infrastructure just couldn't cope with 5x increase in traffic and you had to go to a higher level contract with your ISP since you now need a connection with five-nines availability, 'cause if it falls down all your employees will be twidling their thumbs.

God, not this again (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474264)

Back in the late 90s, everyone was beefing up the server room with huge disk arrays, fat pipes, racks and cooling so all their remote locations could access "all the company's data" stored in one central location. It looked great on paper, but in practice, not so much. 8:15am every morning, the pipes would fil, Internet access was slow, VOIP got shitty, wifi would suck and remote offices would call the IT manager and report they could not access the file server.

This went on for a number of years until the industry did a flip-flop to local file services; NAS, RAID, WAAS whatever could speed up productivity remotely. Things improved, but then the company was flying techs all over the country to fix stupid windows problems, or be on the phone for hours walking a remote user through a server reboot.

Now, the industry is flip-flopping again. "Cloud" is just another word for centralized storage, except Amazon and Google are eating the IT departments lunch. Things will flip-flop again after a few outages cost a few companies some multi-million dollar contract. It would be nice if IT managers had the foresight to see this trend in the first place, but most of them don't.

Morons. thats' why. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474288)

the 'cloud' belongs to another company, which is at the whim of its directors, and ultimately, shareholders.

who knows what they will decide in the next 5 years ? who says a company which is linked with a competitor of yours wont buy the company in 5 years ?

who says they wont just shut stuff on your face, like microsoft did to many, many partners and customers, in the next 5 years ?

noone says any of these. because, most of you have not thought of these.

its plain morondom. any manager that jeopardize the business by giving the lifeline of the company to an outside company, should be fired. then again that is a result which ends up coming into being because we have finance / managerial curriculum.

Short-sighted and thoughtless (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474314)

That pretty much describes the recent and current trends in business. When was the last time you heard "20 year plan" let alone "10 year plan" or even "5 year plan"? I used to hear that all the time as businesses made their strategies and plans with longevity and long term goals in mind. These days, you hear planning by the year and the quarter. Long term projects are killed because they cost short-term money with no immediate returns. If there is anything that kills progress, it is this.

TL;DR? Business has gotten immature and impatient.

IT departments suck: WHOCOODANODE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474344)

Really? After close to a decade of squeezing IT departments budgets and staff, managers are realizing that they've created departments that completely suck? Anybody who actually knew how to do anything useful or cared about customer service has bailed out YEARS ago after getting tired of having the "work MOAR for LESS or we'll send your jobs to Bangalore" sword at their throat...

IT is just doing it's job... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36474412)

Corporations have IT staff to make tech work most efficiently for their specific needs. Sure, every department can run their own email solution but that would increase management time and expense over having a centralized common infrastructure. This is true for most technologies...disparate, non-connected systems, are inefficient and end up costing the company more than the perceived "delay" in working projects into existing frameworks and systems.

I've seen my fair share of IT people who say No just for the power trip but it isn't the norm from my experience. Most people in IT want to develop tightly integrated systems that work for their customers. What they don't want to do is blindly implement some non-technical managers idea when it goes against the grain of other systems that are already implemented. If you don't care about tight integrations and efficiency you can outsource to The Cloud (tm)... If you want well designed systems that correlate with your business as a whole, let the people in IT do their jobs. They usually do know a thing or two about how to do it right.

what i think happens (1)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36474436)

with a cloud service the manager gets, at least in the best case: - An SLA
- feature or service is quickly in production
- cost can easily be lower than in house IT, at least for small companies
- no grumpy IT employee to deal with
- can redirect grumpy users to the cloud support center
- when the service fails, the manager can say "not my fault" and "I already called hotline in the cloud" - etc ...
I've got 100MB of email quota with my "IT managed" email. I really wish we would switch to the cloud and I can get a few gigabytes of email quota.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>