<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_2029259</id>
	<title>Why "Running IT As a Business" Is a Bad Idea</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263892320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>snydeq sends along a provocative piece from Infoworld, arguing that the <a href="http://infoworld.com/print/108477">conventional wisdom on how IT should be run is all wrong</a>. <i>"Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business,' instead offering insights into what he is calling a 'guerilla movement' to reject conventional 'IT wisdom' and industry punditry in favor of what experience tells you will work in real organizations. 'When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers," its principal product is software that "meets requirements." This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results,' Lewis writes. 'The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business &mdash; that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do.' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis. After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq sends along a provocative piece from Infoworld , arguing that the conventional wisdom on how IT should be run is all wrong .
" Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business, ' instead offering insights into what he is calling a 'guerilla movement ' to reject conventional 'IT wisdom ' and industry punditry in favor of what experience tells you will work in real organizations .
'When IT is a business , selling to its " internal customers , " its principal product is software that " meets requirements .
" This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution , lack of business ownership , and poor acceptance of the results, ' Lewis writes .
'The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business    that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise , and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do .
' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT , according to Lewis .
After all , the standard 'run IT as a business ' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry , 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq sends along a provocative piece from Infoworld, arguing that the conventional wisdom on how IT should be run is all wrong.
"Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business,' instead offering insights into what he is calling a 'guerilla movement' to reject conventional 'IT wisdom' and industry punditry in favor of what experience tells you will work in real organizations.
'When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers," its principal product is software that "meets requirements.
" This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results,' Lewis writes.
'The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business — that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do.
' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis.
After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1263900900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is, at the start of a project, negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT's cut will be. They could book that as profit. Projects that simply don't have enough ROI for IT would be left to twist in the wind. The same thing could be done with incidents maybe at the category level. Have people decide what the potential loss/hour is on an incident and book that as cost savings IT generated for the company. If an incident isn't losing quantifiable money then don't expect anyone soon.<br>IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is , at the start of a project , negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT 's cut will be .
They could book that as profit .
Projects that simply do n't have enough ROI for IT would be left to twist in the wind .
The same thing could be done with incidents maybe at the category level .
Have people decide what the potential loss/hour is on an incident and book that as cost savings IT generated for the company .
If an incident is n't losing quantifiable money then do n't expect anyone soon.IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is, at the start of a project, negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT's cut will be.
They could book that as profit.
Projects that simply don't have enough ROI for IT would be left to twist in the wind.
The same thing could be done with incidents maybe at the category level.
Have people decide what the potential loss/hour is on an incident and book that as cost savings IT generated for the company.
If an incident isn't losing quantifiable money then don't expect anyone soon.IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825340</id>
	<title>"Ruining IT As a Business" Is a Bad Idea</title>
	<author>DrJimbo</author>
	<datestamp>1263899280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tell that to SCO.  For the past six years their business has been based on ruining IT for the rest of us.  For a second opinion ask a patent troll.  Even though it might be a bad idea it is certainly a good business for some of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell that to SCO .
For the past six years their business has been based on ruining IT for the rest of us .
For a second opinion ask a patent troll .
Even though it might be a bad idea it is certainly a good business for some of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell that to SCO.
For the past six years their business has been based on ruining IT for the rest of us.
For a second opinion ask a patent troll.
Even though it might be a bad idea it is certainly a good business for some of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824826</id>
	<title>Feedback Loops.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So essentially, implemented behavior by an entity, would end up benefiting the source who suggested it, which wasn't part of the entity to begin with. This, it turns out, is a bad idea.</p><p>I get the feeling that the business industry across the board has been inundated with bobble heads, yes men, and PHB's. After inspecting the market over the last several years, I'd have to say that this is confirmed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So essentially , implemented behavior by an entity , would end up benefiting the source who suggested it , which was n't part of the entity to begin with .
This , it turns out , is a bad idea.I get the feeling that the business industry across the board has been inundated with bobble heads , yes men , and PHB 's .
After inspecting the market over the last several years , I 'd have to say that this is confirmed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So essentially, implemented behavior by an entity, would end up benefiting the source who suggested it, which wasn't part of the entity to begin with.
This, it turns out, is a bad idea.I get the feeling that the business industry across the board has been inundated with bobble heads, yes men, and PHB's.
After inspecting the market over the last several years, I'd have to say that this is confirmed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828298</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1263921480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours, versus 300 hours, or versus no recovery at all? </i>
</p><p>"How much will it cost if the business is completely stopped for 5 hours, 300 hours, or ever ?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours , versus 300 hours , or versus no recovery at all ?
" How much will it cost if the business is completely stopped for 5 hours , 300 hours , or ever ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours, versus 300 hours, or versus no recovery at all?
"How much will it cost if the business is completely stopped for 5 hours, 300 hours, or ever ?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826434</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263904680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you imagine the wasted hours"$" spent un-f'ing that network</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you imagine the wasted hours " $ " spent un-f'ing that network</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you imagine the wasted hours"$" spent un-f'ing that network</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833836</id>
	<title>Re:Poor communication skills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264010160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have</p></div><p>I strongly disagree. I think the grasshoppa is right that a lot of that article isn't identifying problems inherent in IT as a business, it's identifying cases of people doing it wrong, regardless of how IT's budget is run. For example:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So I suggested that instead of trying to deliver on 'customer needs,' why didn't he go back to the business with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012 -- and beyond.</p></div><p>I don't care whether you're internal or external, that approach should be common sense. Yes, you need to know what the person talking to you thinks they want, but you're failing at your job if you aren't also applying your expertise to make recommendations. That was standard practice when I worked as a web designer and all of our business was with external clients, and it's just as true for the internal technical support and administration. Or again:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"I am," he continues, "drawing on real-life examples, where a boneheaded software design was delivered to the requirements of the business process owner but made the software dead on arrival as users shied away from using the nonintuitive and unnecessarily complicated program."</p></div><p>What does this have at all do to with how IT claims its money? I don't see any case for blaming the IT business model on turning off your brain and delivering a bad product.</p><p>I'm also thrown off by the consistent focus on IT = software delivery. What about all the other components? Network, printing, laptop and desktop and commercial software support. In many of those fields, a comment like the following makes zero sense:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?" </p><p>Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed," followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better way of getting this done."</p></div><p>If the question is "my printer stopped working" the answer isn't "let's figure out how to do it better," it's "let me do what you want me to do to make sure you're satisfied."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understood what you read else you could n't have come to the conclusion you haveI strongly disagree .
I think the grasshoppa is right that a lot of that article is n't identifying problems inherent in IT as a business , it 's identifying cases of people doing it wrong , regardless of how IT 's budget is run .
For example : So I suggested that instead of trying to deliver on 'customer needs, ' why did n't he go back to the business with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012 -- and beyond.I do n't care whether you 're internal or external , that approach should be common sense .
Yes , you need to know what the person talking to you thinks they want , but you 're failing at your job if you are n't also applying your expertise to make recommendations .
That was standard practice when I worked as a web designer and all of our business was with external clients , and it 's just as true for the internal technical support and administration .
Or again : " I am , " he continues , " drawing on real-life examples , where a boneheaded software design was delivered to the requirements of the business process owner but made the software dead on arrival as users shied away from using the nonintuitive and unnecessarily complicated program .
" What does this have at all do to with how IT claims its money ?
I do n't see any case for blaming the IT business model on turning off your brain and delivering a bad product.I 'm also thrown off by the consistent focus on IT = software delivery .
What about all the other components ?
Network , printing , laptop and desktop and commercial software support .
In many of those fields , a comment like the following makes zero sense : Nobody in IT should ever say , " You 're my customer and my job is to make sure you 're satisfied , " or ask , " What do you want me to do ?
" Instead , they should say , " My job is to help you and the company succeed , " followed by " Show me how you do things now , " and " Let 's figure out a better way of getting this done .
" If the question is " my printer stopped working " the answer is n't " let 's figure out how to do it better , " it 's " let me do what you want me to do to make sure you 're satisfied .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you haveI strongly disagree.
I think the grasshoppa is right that a lot of that article isn't identifying problems inherent in IT as a business, it's identifying cases of people doing it wrong, regardless of how IT's budget is run.
For example:So I suggested that instead of trying to deliver on 'customer needs,' why didn't he go back to the business with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012 -- and beyond.I don't care whether you're internal or external, that approach should be common sense.
Yes, you need to know what the person talking to you thinks they want, but you're failing at your job if you aren't also applying your expertise to make recommendations.
That was standard practice when I worked as a web designer and all of our business was with external clients, and it's just as true for the internal technical support and administration.
Or again:"I am," he continues, "drawing on real-life examples, where a boneheaded software design was delivered to the requirements of the business process owner but made the software dead on arrival as users shied away from using the nonintuitive and unnecessarily complicated program.
"What does this have at all do to with how IT claims its money?
I don't see any case for blaming the IT business model on turning off your brain and delivering a bad product.I'm also thrown off by the consistent focus on IT = software delivery.
What about all the other components?
Network, printing, laptop and desktop and commercial software support.
In many of those fields, a comment like the following makes zero sense:Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?
" Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed," followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better way of getting this done.
"If the question is "my printer stopped working" the answer isn't "let's figure out how to do it better," it's "let me do what you want me to do to make sure you're satisfied.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832992</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1264007280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If IT acts as you describe, they certainly are NOT acting as the article suggests at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If IT acts as you describe , they certainly are NOT acting as the article suggests at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IT acts as you describe, they certainly are NOT acting as the article suggests at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</id>
	<title>Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>Luthair</author>
	<datestamp>1263896880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I do agree that running IT like a business is often not the best way to go about it, some of the things said in the article are simply bizarre.  For example, what does this even [b]mean[/b]:</p><p> <i>Instead of reacting to users, he should be their peer. Primarily, I asked him why he didn't transition from building Web apps to instead creating a solution using cloud technology and true mobile devices like BlackBerrys, iPods, and emerging tablets. He could offer a better solution, at about a quarter of the cost.</i> </p><p>While buzzword compliant it doesn't really mean anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I do agree that running IT like a business is often not the best way to go about it , some of the things said in the article are simply bizarre .
For example , what does this even [ b ] mean [ /b ] : Instead of reacting to users , he should be their peer .
Primarily , I asked him why he did n't transition from building Web apps to instead creating a solution using cloud technology and true mobile devices like BlackBerrys , iPods , and emerging tablets .
He could offer a better solution , at about a quarter of the cost .
While buzzword compliant it does n't really mean anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I do agree that running IT like a business is often not the best way to go about it, some of the things said in the article are simply bizarre.
For example, what does this even [b]mean[/b]: Instead of reacting to users, he should be their peer.
Primarily, I asked him why he didn't transition from building Web apps to instead creating a solution using cloud technology and true mobile devices like BlackBerrys, iPods, and emerging tablets.
He could offer a better solution, at about a quarter of the cost.
While buzzword compliant it doesn't really mean anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828726</id>
	<title>I agree with Bob Lewis' view</title>
	<author>bwanagary</author>
	<datestamp>1263925920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been in this game my entire life I've learned that Businessmen (women) make Business decisions. They are not qualified to make technical (IT) decisions, so, they make "business" decisions. The down side of this, is that they often (not always) hire the cheapest IT resources they can (because that's a good "business" decision). Unfortunately, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so its a false economy. If you ask these decision makers if they would pick the cheapest brain surgeon, or cosmetic surgeon for their wife's fill-in-the-blanks surgery, they would first do some research, obtain opinions and only then make the decision. A cab driver cannot evaluate the technical acumen of a Boeing 747 pilot any more than a Businessman can evaluate the technical acumen of an IT professional - so they go by price alone. Since their hiring practices are based on price and what they think they know from the latest "computer fashion magazine" or "expert journalist", its not surprise that as often as not they get burned. They really have a disdain for the technical personnel. IT personnel haven't helped themselves either - many have thrown their weight around the company with conceit and arrogance, "confirming" the businessman's opinion. Unless the IT group is in charge of their own *P* and L, instead of just the L, it flat out can't function as a business. That means that IT is a profit center with control of its own destiny, or its not. It can't be half (usually the L half) of a profit center only, and provide any quality level of service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been in this game my entire life I 've learned that Businessmen ( women ) make Business decisions .
They are not qualified to make technical ( IT ) decisions , so , they make " business " decisions .
The down side of this , is that they often ( not always ) hire the cheapest IT resources they can ( because that 's a good " business " decision ) .
Unfortunately , if you pay peanuts , you get monkeys , so its a false economy .
If you ask these decision makers if they would pick the cheapest brain surgeon , or cosmetic surgeon for their wife 's fill-in-the-blanks surgery , they would first do some research , obtain opinions and only then make the decision .
A cab driver can not evaluate the technical acumen of a Boeing 747 pilot any more than a Businessman can evaluate the technical acumen of an IT professional - so they go by price alone .
Since their hiring practices are based on price and what they think they know from the latest " computer fashion magazine " or " expert journalist " , its not surprise that as often as not they get burned .
They really have a disdain for the technical personnel .
IT personnel have n't helped themselves either - many have thrown their weight around the company with conceit and arrogance , " confirming " the businessman 's opinion .
Unless the IT group is in charge of their own * P * and L , instead of just the L , it flat out ca n't function as a business .
That means that IT is a profit center with control of its own destiny , or its not .
It ca n't be half ( usually the L half ) of a profit center only , and provide any quality level of service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been in this game my entire life I've learned that Businessmen (women) make Business decisions.
They are not qualified to make technical (IT) decisions, so, they make "business" decisions.
The down side of this, is that they often (not always) hire the cheapest IT resources they can (because that's a good "business" decision).
Unfortunately, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, so its a false economy.
If you ask these decision makers if they would pick the cheapest brain surgeon, or cosmetic surgeon for their wife's fill-in-the-blanks surgery, they would first do some research, obtain opinions and only then make the decision.
A cab driver cannot evaluate the technical acumen of a Boeing 747 pilot any more than a Businessman can evaluate the technical acumen of an IT professional - so they go by price alone.
Since their hiring practices are based on price and what they think they know from the latest "computer fashion magazine" or "expert journalist", its not surprise that as often as not they get burned.
They really have a disdain for the technical personnel.
IT personnel haven't helped themselves either - many have thrown their weight around the company with conceit and arrogance, "confirming" the businessman's opinion.
Unless the IT group is in charge of their own *P* and L, instead of just the L, it flat out can't function as a business.
That means that IT is a profit center with control of its own destiny, or its not.
It can't be half (usually the L half) of a profit center only, and provide any quality level of service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825466</id>
	<title>IT business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a company that runs IT like a business.  All of the management is fully engaged in financial matters leaving all of the actual oversight and management to the project and team leads who are already burnt out due to lack of numerous things including lack of staffing, lack of talent, lack of respect and increasing politics especially after recent round of layoffs.  This business model works so great for us, I can't wait for our next group hug...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a company that runs IT like a business .
All of the management is fully engaged in financial matters leaving all of the actual oversight and management to the project and team leads who are already burnt out due to lack of numerous things including lack of staffing , lack of talent , lack of respect and increasing politics especially after recent round of layoffs .
This business model works so great for us , I ca n't wait for our next group hug.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a company that runs IT like a business.
All of the management is fully engaged in financial matters leaving all of the actual oversight and management to the project and team leads who are already burnt out due to lack of numerous things including lack of staffing, lack of talent, lack of respect and increasing politics especially after recent round of layoffs.
This business model works so great for us, I can't wait for our next group hug...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825052</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1263898140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A janitor cleans things up - and is not a carpenter.<br>A carpenter builds new things - and is not a janitor.</p><p>IT has to do both.</p><p>If either gets neglected, the company suffers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A janitor cleans things up - and is not a carpenter.A carpenter builds new things - and is not a janitor.IT has to do both.If either gets neglected , the company suffers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A janitor cleans things up - and is not a carpenter.A carpenter builds new things - and is not a janitor.IT has to do both.If either gets neglected, the company suffers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826296</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>cmdotter</author>
	<datestamp>1263903780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps this is our fault?</p><p>We wrote the damn accountant their packages in the first place! Perhaps we should have also added a way to hide all IT spending and costs....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps this is our fault ? We wrote the damn accountant their packages in the first place !
Perhaps we should have also added a way to hide all IT spending and costs... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps this is our fault?We wrote the damn accountant their packages in the first place!
Perhaps we should have also added a way to hide all IT spending and costs....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826190</id>
	<title>IT integrated into the heart of the organization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263903300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT should be integrated into the very heart of the organization. Okay. But only on one condition: That the janitorial department is integrated directly into the board room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT should be integrated into the very heart of the organization .
Okay. But only on one condition : That the janitorial department is integrated directly into the board room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT should be integrated into the very heart of the organization.
Okay. But only on one condition: That the janitorial department is integrated directly into the board room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841300</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1264000200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROI in terms of "profit" booked. The business would have to negotiate a number for how much steady state is worth. If the business doesn't bid enough then they'll get their patches once a month and they won't be tested as rigorously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROI in terms of " profit " booked .
The business would have to negotiate a number for how much steady state is worth .
If the business does n't bid enough then they 'll get their patches once a month and they wo n't be tested as rigorously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROI in terms of "profit" booked.
The business would have to negotiate a number for how much steady state is worth.
If the business doesn't bid enough then they'll get their patches once a month and they won't be tested as rigorously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827320</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Sot32</author>
	<datestamp>1263911880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest payback from IT is saving money.  A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned.  A dollar saved is pure profit.  A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.</p></div><p>But in most companies, IT is not leveraged as a partner of the business who can help to increase efficiencies and reduce cost.  IT is a department that's considered overhead and they get cost savings out of it by asking them to make it smaller year over year.  Over year.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out, it's when upgrading saves the company money.  A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it doesn't belong.</p></div><p>Case in point.  Where do you expect Windows 7 to save the company money?  Those commercials raving about the revolutionary technology to snap two pages together don't have me convinced.  Mass operating system upgrades are usually undertaken only to maintain support.  There is rarely a cost justification.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7.  Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations, maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs. A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.  Yet I see that a lot.  Not what works best, but what the techs know.  Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.</p></div><p>Or maybe supporting everything under the sun increases IT cost immensely.  See paragraph 1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest payback from IT is saving money .
A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned .
A dollar saved is pure profit .
A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.But in most companies , IT is not leveraged as a partner of the business who can help to increase efficiencies and reduce cost .
IT is a department that 's considered overhead and they get cost savings out of it by asking them to make it smaller year over year .
Over year.The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out , it 's when upgrading saves the company money .
A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it does n't belong.Case in point .
Where do you expect Windows 7 to save the company money ?
Those commercials raving about the revolutionary technology to snap two pages together do n't have me convinced .
Mass operating system upgrades are usually undertaken only to maintain support .
There is rarely a cost justification .
Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7 .
Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations , maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs .
A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money , not what your technical people know and where they 've invested their training .
Yet I see that a lot .
Not what works best , but what the techs know .
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.Or maybe supporting everything under the sun increases IT cost immensely .
See paragraph 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest payback from IT is saving money.
A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned.
A dollar saved is pure profit.
A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.But in most companies, IT is not leveraged as a partner of the business who can help to increase efficiencies and reduce cost.
IT is a department that's considered overhead and they get cost savings out of it by asking them to make it smaller year over year.
Over year.The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out, it's when upgrading saves the company money.
A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it doesn't belong.Case in point.
Where do you expect Windows 7 to save the company money?
Those commercials raving about the revolutionary technology to snap two pages together don't have me convinced.
Mass operating system upgrades are usually undertaken only to maintain support.
There is rarely a cost justification.
Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7.
Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations, maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs.
A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.
Yet I see that a lot.
Not what works best, but what the techs know.
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.Or maybe supporting everything under the sun increases IT cost immensely.
See paragraph 1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. IT people should be more in tune with how the business works as well. This is where industry software and hardware often fall apart.</p><p>They have one of two things:</p><p>1. IT person creating business applications and hardware. They are technically superior, but miss the goals of the business partially, or entirely. Because of this, the business cannot run optimally.</p><p>2. A Business person creating business applications and hardware. They are technically inferior...sometimes so much to the point of not working half the time, but the ideas, and the process fit the business model.</p><p>Having IT people within the business that can identify what the user is trying to do, and how to do it, can help the IT person come up with better ideas of how to do it. When a user asks to fix a problem, don't just fix it, perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.</p><p>Reminds me of a time when I was called in to fix some scanners and printers. After fixing them, they proceded to print a document, then scan it in, just to email it to a vendor. I politely showed them that CutePDF prints PDFs like a printer, and they can email it, saving a few steps and a lot of time. Now I try to engage the users in asking them what they want to accomplish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
IT people should be more in tune with how the business works as well .
This is where industry software and hardware often fall apart.They have one of two things : 1 .
IT person creating business applications and hardware .
They are technically superior , but miss the goals of the business partially , or entirely .
Because of this , the business can not run optimally.2 .
A Business person creating business applications and hardware .
They are technically inferior...sometimes so much to the point of not working half the time , but the ideas , and the process fit the business model.Having IT people within the business that can identify what the user is trying to do , and how to do it , can help the IT person come up with better ideas of how to do it .
When a user asks to fix a problem , do n't just fix it , perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.Reminds me of a time when I was called in to fix some scanners and printers .
After fixing them , they proceded to print a document , then scan it in , just to email it to a vendor .
I politely showed them that CutePDF prints PDFs like a printer , and they can email it , saving a few steps and a lot of time .
Now I try to engage the users in asking them what they want to accomplish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
IT people should be more in tune with how the business works as well.
This is where industry software and hardware often fall apart.They have one of two things:1.
IT person creating business applications and hardware.
They are technically superior, but miss the goals of the business partially, or entirely.
Because of this, the business cannot run optimally.2.
A Business person creating business applications and hardware.
They are technically inferior...sometimes so much to the point of not working half the time, but the ideas, and the process fit the business model.Having IT people within the business that can identify what the user is trying to do, and how to do it, can help the IT person come up with better ideas of how to do it.
When a user asks to fix a problem, don't just fix it, perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.Reminds me of a time when I was called in to fix some scanners and printers.
After fixing them, they proceded to print a document, then scan it in, just to email it to a vendor.
I politely showed them that CutePDF prints PDFs like a printer, and they can email it, saving a few steps and a lot of time.
Now I try to engage the users in asking them what they want to accomplish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825470</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263899820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In olden days when I was a young IT pup, IT was generally considered to be a subsidiary of Finance, which made sense at the time since most computing was done to crunch numbers, so we worked for the number crunchers.  Later, as IT evolved, it tended to stay under Finance because people who do inscrutable things are just seen as similar in the eyes of management.  This led to serious conflicts as, say, order entry or inventory management wanted changes but all fell subservient to IT's overlords in Finance.  Finance, understandably, didn't want to spend their budget supporting other department's goals.</p><p>Eventually, IT started either being broken out into subgroups and living with their business areas as scattered fiefdoms, or centralized and moved up the management chain so the CFO and CIO were on the same level.  As this happens, managing the IT teams becomes a unique challenge, because IT is in so many ways integrated into all aspects of a company in ways that other organizations simply aren't.  So you either have (potentially well-managed and aligned) fiefdoms that use different platforms that can't talk to each other, or you have a group that tries to meet everyone's needs with as few discrete solutions as possible and, at best, succeed partly at satisfying everyone.</p><p>Money spent on IT is almost always considered "lost revenue", and a holdback from the old Finance days of IT is that every department needs to justify its existence.  Thus the chargeback model was born.  So concepts like charging rent for floor space (forcing managers to vacate space that will never be occupied to save their "rent" costs, and cramming their people into spaces too small for them to work effectively) or finding a profit model for IT (forcing managers to forgo any systems changes that didn't actually save measurable amounts of money, even if the ideas really would help in the longer term) were born to try and force the idea of efficiency into each department.</p><p>Once you do that, you will always find that you can get a specific task done in the short term by hiring someone who can just solve the problem at hand without being bothered by all the consequences like incompatibility with existing processes and systems, long-term support costs, etc.</p><p>You'll also almost always find it's cheaper to do a crappy job on your project now while your expense code is on the line, and leave the cleanup to future projects who have to deal with it and spend more money to use what you've built (but it's on THEIR expense code).</p><p>Plus, of course, IT itself is given very finite resources at most companies (which is appropriate) and has to fulfill specific goals of the company to "earn" those resources (which is also appropriate).</p><p>But there's generally a lack of appreciation for the benefits that creative IT can bring to a company, so few companies give their IT staff much in the way of leeway to explore new technologies (outside those mentioned in CIO magazine and implemented "right away" with little input as to whether it's the right solution for any actual problem the company is facing, or even what the solution is meant to do, and most of those are explored by a consultant anyway).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In olden days when I was a young IT pup , IT was generally considered to be a subsidiary of Finance , which made sense at the time since most computing was done to crunch numbers , so we worked for the number crunchers .
Later , as IT evolved , it tended to stay under Finance because people who do inscrutable things are just seen as similar in the eyes of management .
This led to serious conflicts as , say , order entry or inventory management wanted changes but all fell subservient to IT 's overlords in Finance .
Finance , understandably , did n't want to spend their budget supporting other department 's goals.Eventually , IT started either being broken out into subgroups and living with their business areas as scattered fiefdoms , or centralized and moved up the management chain so the CFO and CIO were on the same level .
As this happens , managing the IT teams becomes a unique challenge , because IT is in so many ways integrated into all aspects of a company in ways that other organizations simply are n't .
So you either have ( potentially well-managed and aligned ) fiefdoms that use different platforms that ca n't talk to each other , or you have a group that tries to meet everyone 's needs with as few discrete solutions as possible and , at best , succeed partly at satisfying everyone.Money spent on IT is almost always considered " lost revenue " , and a holdback from the old Finance days of IT is that every department needs to justify its existence .
Thus the chargeback model was born .
So concepts like charging rent for floor space ( forcing managers to vacate space that will never be occupied to save their " rent " costs , and cramming their people into spaces too small for them to work effectively ) or finding a profit model for IT ( forcing managers to forgo any systems changes that did n't actually save measurable amounts of money , even if the ideas really would help in the longer term ) were born to try and force the idea of efficiency into each department.Once you do that , you will always find that you can get a specific task done in the short term by hiring someone who can just solve the problem at hand without being bothered by all the consequences like incompatibility with existing processes and systems , long-term support costs , etc.You 'll also almost always find it 's cheaper to do a crappy job on your project now while your expense code is on the line , and leave the cleanup to future projects who have to deal with it and spend more money to use what you 've built ( but it 's on THEIR expense code ) .Plus , of course , IT itself is given very finite resources at most companies ( which is appropriate ) and has to fulfill specific goals of the company to " earn " those resources ( which is also appropriate ) .But there 's generally a lack of appreciation for the benefits that creative IT can bring to a company , so few companies give their IT staff much in the way of leeway to explore new technologies ( outside those mentioned in CIO magazine and implemented " right away " with little input as to whether it 's the right solution for any actual problem the company is facing , or even what the solution is meant to do , and most of those are explored by a consultant anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In olden days when I was a young IT pup, IT was generally considered to be a subsidiary of Finance, which made sense at the time since most computing was done to crunch numbers, so we worked for the number crunchers.
Later, as IT evolved, it tended to stay under Finance because people who do inscrutable things are just seen as similar in the eyes of management.
This led to serious conflicts as, say, order entry or inventory management wanted changes but all fell subservient to IT's overlords in Finance.
Finance, understandably, didn't want to spend their budget supporting other department's goals.Eventually, IT started either being broken out into subgroups and living with their business areas as scattered fiefdoms, or centralized and moved up the management chain so the CFO and CIO were on the same level.
As this happens, managing the IT teams becomes a unique challenge, because IT is in so many ways integrated into all aspects of a company in ways that other organizations simply aren't.
So you either have (potentially well-managed and aligned) fiefdoms that use different platforms that can't talk to each other, or you have a group that tries to meet everyone's needs with as few discrete solutions as possible and, at best, succeed partly at satisfying everyone.Money spent on IT is almost always considered "lost revenue", and a holdback from the old Finance days of IT is that every department needs to justify its existence.
Thus the chargeback model was born.
So concepts like charging rent for floor space (forcing managers to vacate space that will never be occupied to save their "rent" costs, and cramming their people into spaces too small for them to work effectively) or finding a profit model for IT (forcing managers to forgo any systems changes that didn't actually save measurable amounts of money, even if the ideas really would help in the longer term) were born to try and force the idea of efficiency into each department.Once you do that, you will always find that you can get a specific task done in the short term by hiring someone who can just solve the problem at hand without being bothered by all the consequences like incompatibility with existing processes and systems, long-term support costs, etc.You'll also almost always find it's cheaper to do a crappy job on your project now while your expense code is on the line, and leave the cleanup to future projects who have to deal with it and spend more money to use what you've built (but it's on THEIR expense code).Plus, of course, IT itself is given very finite resources at most companies (which is appropriate) and has to fulfill specific goals of the company to "earn" those resources (which is also appropriate).But there's generally a lack of appreciation for the benefits that creative IT can bring to a company, so few companies give their IT staff much in the way of leeway to explore new technologies (outside those mentioned in CIO magazine and implemented "right away" with little input as to whether it's the right solution for any actual problem the company is facing, or even what the solution is meant to do, and most of those are explored by a consultant anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824950</id>
	<title>TFA beat us to it!</title>
	<author>Target Practice</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"[Fawaz] likens IT's proper role to that of an engineer designing a car."</p><p>Dammit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ Fawaz ] likens IT 's proper role to that of an engineer designing a car .
" Dammit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[Fawaz] likens IT's proper role to that of an engineer designing a car.
"Dammit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824908</id>
	<title>What a Crock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fundamental problem with many internal IT departments and particularly with regard to the development of software is the lack of discipline that the customers have because of the absence of price as a constraining behaviour.</p><p>When you are a good  external provider of bespoke software you end up being able to use the price of your overall service and in particular, intra project "changes" in order to make sure that the customer is disciplined about defining and holding to a realistic set of requirements. It is difficult to understate how critical this is to success. In most of the crappy internal IT departments that I have dealt with the only constraint that the customer has is time and as such everything "can be done" because they just change their requirments with no impact on their budget and so the project delays and slides inexorably towards failure.</p><p>This is without even looking at the issue of competing internal requests for limited IT resource where, assuming that the resource is limited, the best solution for the company as a whole is to provide the limited resource to the profit centre that can most afford to pay them, thus allocating the resource to the mest problems within the business. This particular point is a bit of an over generalisation but I feel that \_more\_ rather than \_less\_ business focus from the IT folk is the way to ensure less projects fail.</p><p>TFA, reasons that the IT department should go back to the business with "with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012". In other words act like a domain expert business whose services the customer would be willing to purchase and to whose advice the customer would be willing to listen to illuminate, improve or limit their requirments.</p><p>Why doesn't this happen? Because the vast majority of IT departments are not run like business and they have not demonstrated the expertise (through repeated success) to allow the actual profit centres of the company to be willing to listen to them.</p><p>Indeed rather than behaving less like a business IT should behave more like a business, or perhaps more acurately more like an entrepeneur with a goal of maximising profit and then</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental problem with many internal IT departments and particularly with regard to the development of software is the lack of discipline that the customers have because of the absence of price as a constraining behaviour.When you are a good external provider of bespoke software you end up being able to use the price of your overall service and in particular , intra project " changes " in order to make sure that the customer is disciplined about defining and holding to a realistic set of requirements .
It is difficult to understate how critical this is to success .
In most of the crappy internal IT departments that I have dealt with the only constraint that the customer has is time and as such everything " can be done " because they just change their requirments with no impact on their budget and so the project delays and slides inexorably towards failure.This is without even looking at the issue of competing internal requests for limited IT resource where , assuming that the resource is limited , the best solution for the company as a whole is to provide the limited resource to the profit centre that can most afford to pay them , thus allocating the resource to the mest problems within the business .
This particular point is a bit of an over generalisation but I feel that \ _more \ _ rather than \ _less \ _ business focus from the IT folk is the way to ensure less projects fail.TFA , reasons that the IT department should go back to the business with " with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012 " .
In other words act like a domain expert business whose services the customer would be willing to purchase and to whose advice the customer would be willing to listen to illuminate , improve or limit their requirments.Why does n't this happen ?
Because the vast majority of IT departments are not run like business and they have not demonstrated the expertise ( through repeated success ) to allow the actual profit centres of the company to be willing to listen to them.Indeed rather than behaving less like a business IT should behave more like a business , or perhaps more acurately more like an entrepeneur with a goal of maximising profit and then</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental problem with many internal IT departments and particularly with regard to the development of software is the lack of discipline that the customers have because of the absence of price as a constraining behaviour.When you are a good  external provider of bespoke software you end up being able to use the price of your overall service and in particular, intra project "changes" in order to make sure that the customer is disciplined about defining and holding to a realistic set of requirements.
It is difficult to understate how critical this is to success.
In most of the crappy internal IT departments that I have dealt with the only constraint that the customer has is time and as such everything "can be done" because they just change their requirments with no impact on their budget and so the project delays and slides inexorably towards failure.This is without even looking at the issue of competing internal requests for limited IT resource where, assuming that the resource is limited, the best solution for the company as a whole is to provide the limited resource to the profit centre that can most afford to pay them, thus allocating the resource to the mest problems within the business.
This particular point is a bit of an over generalisation but I feel that \_more\_ rather than \_less\_ business focus from the IT folk is the way to ensure less projects fail.TFA, reasons that the IT department should go back to the business with "with a set of recommendations for how he thought he could deliver a superior set of solutions that would meet their needs in 2012".
In other words act like a domain expert business whose services the customer would be willing to purchase and to whose advice the customer would be willing to listen to illuminate, improve or limit their requirments.Why doesn't this happen?
Because the vast majority of IT departments are not run like business and they have not demonstrated the expertise (through repeated success) to allow the actual profit centres of the company to be willing to listen to them.Indeed rather than behaving less like a business IT should behave more like a business, or perhaps more acurately more like an entrepeneur with a goal of maximising profit and then</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826754</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263907080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have to do more than just charge the other departments for you time, you need to overcharge.</p><p>When my dept finds a trend in the DB and drop an easy sale in somebody's lap, we take commission.  When we write software that saves the call center time, we estimate how many hours they save per month and charge them that for a quarter or two.  When somebody needed me to clean brownie crumbs out of their heat sink(how?!), I'm going to charge their dept time+idiot tax.</p><p>That extra money pays for all the stuff management thinks is just "useless overhead expenses".  Like cabling and nightly backups.</p><p>I don't know how we get away with it:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to do more than just charge the other departments for you time , you need to overcharge.When my dept finds a trend in the DB and drop an easy sale in somebody 's lap , we take commission .
When we write software that saves the call center time , we estimate how many hours they save per month and charge them that for a quarter or two .
When somebody needed me to clean brownie crumbs out of their heat sink ( how ? !
) , I 'm going to charge their dept time + idiot tax.That extra money pays for all the stuff management thinks is just " useless overhead expenses " .
Like cabling and nightly backups.I do n't know how we get away with it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to do more than just charge the other departments for you time, you need to overcharge.When my dept finds a trend in the DB and drop an easy sale in somebody's lap, we take commission.
When we write software that saves the call center time, we estimate how many hours they save per month and charge them that for a quarter or two.
When somebody needed me to clean brownie crumbs out of their heat sink(how?!
), I'm going to charge their dept time+idiot tax.That extra money pays for all the stuff management thinks is just "useless overhead expenses".
Like cabling and nightly backups.I don't know how we get away with it:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825000</id>
	<title>depends on what IT does in the company</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1263897900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building Services keeps the lights on, AC running, water in the pipes and toilets unstopped but they don't really know all that much about the business process and don't need to. Depending on the structure of the company, IT may operate at that level and super-users in different departments handle the business side of the IT.</p><p>For example, IT maintains the servers for file stores, database, etc. The SQL administrator is in IT. There are two big products that run on the SQL server, one for accounting and the other for sales. The accounting product admin is in accounting. I'm the admin for the sales side and straddle IT and sales. I'm not really assigned to either department.</p><p>The problem here is sort of similar to what you hear about outsourcing. "Is it a good outsourcing company? Is it a bad one? Is it moral to send the work overseas? Will your outsourcing effort fail?" And the primary question really isn't about outsourcing at all or even IT but is a question of whether the company has its shit together. Do people really understand how they do business? Do they know how, when, why for the important stuff? Do they have business processes documented? Are they capable of putting all that stuff down on paper and not having it change two months later on a whim?</p><p>An architect can design a building for a company but if the company isn't sure what it wants or even what sort of business it's in, the architect cannot do anything but fail.</p><p>In dysfunctional organizations, a greater premium is placed on ass-covering than problem-solving. Nobody wants to accept responsibility and sticking your neck out is just asking it to get chopped. In this kind of environment, IT will be defensive, not wanting to take on more responsibilities or promise a higher level of service because that just invites more things to go wrong. And this balkanization of the corporate departments prevents the sort of cooperation and cross-training necessary for getting things done successfully. In a healthy company, the operations side knows what the hell it's doing and IT can learn how the business operates and suggest solutions that the operations side might not even know they should ask for. And likewise, operations people will learn more about how their systems operate and the full extend of the features they're not utilizing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building Services keeps the lights on , AC running , water in the pipes and toilets unstopped but they do n't really know all that much about the business process and do n't need to .
Depending on the structure of the company , IT may operate at that level and super-users in different departments handle the business side of the IT.For example , IT maintains the servers for file stores , database , etc .
The SQL administrator is in IT .
There are two big products that run on the SQL server , one for accounting and the other for sales .
The accounting product admin is in accounting .
I 'm the admin for the sales side and straddle IT and sales .
I 'm not really assigned to either department.The problem here is sort of similar to what you hear about outsourcing .
" Is it a good outsourcing company ?
Is it a bad one ?
Is it moral to send the work overseas ?
Will your outsourcing effort fail ?
" And the primary question really is n't about outsourcing at all or even IT but is a question of whether the company has its shit together .
Do people really understand how they do business ?
Do they know how , when , why for the important stuff ?
Do they have business processes documented ?
Are they capable of putting all that stuff down on paper and not having it change two months later on a whim ? An architect can design a building for a company but if the company is n't sure what it wants or even what sort of business it 's in , the architect can not do anything but fail.In dysfunctional organizations , a greater premium is placed on ass-covering than problem-solving .
Nobody wants to accept responsibility and sticking your neck out is just asking it to get chopped .
In this kind of environment , IT will be defensive , not wanting to take on more responsibilities or promise a higher level of service because that just invites more things to go wrong .
And this balkanization of the corporate departments prevents the sort of cooperation and cross-training necessary for getting things done successfully .
In a healthy company , the operations side knows what the hell it 's doing and IT can learn how the business operates and suggest solutions that the operations side might not even know they should ask for .
And likewise , operations people will learn more about how their systems operate and the full extend of the features they 're not utilizing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building Services keeps the lights on, AC running, water in the pipes and toilets unstopped but they don't really know all that much about the business process and don't need to.
Depending on the structure of the company, IT may operate at that level and super-users in different departments handle the business side of the IT.For example, IT maintains the servers for file stores, database, etc.
The SQL administrator is in IT.
There are two big products that run on the SQL server, one for accounting and the other for sales.
The accounting product admin is in accounting.
I'm the admin for the sales side and straddle IT and sales.
I'm not really assigned to either department.The problem here is sort of similar to what you hear about outsourcing.
"Is it a good outsourcing company?
Is it a bad one?
Is it moral to send the work overseas?
Will your outsourcing effort fail?
" And the primary question really isn't about outsourcing at all or even IT but is a question of whether the company has its shit together.
Do people really understand how they do business?
Do they know how, when, why for the important stuff?
Do they have business processes documented?
Are they capable of putting all that stuff down on paper and not having it change two months later on a whim?An architect can design a building for a company but if the company isn't sure what it wants or even what sort of business it's in, the architect cannot do anything but fail.In dysfunctional organizations, a greater premium is placed on ass-covering than problem-solving.
Nobody wants to accept responsibility and sticking your neck out is just asking it to get chopped.
In this kind of environment, IT will be defensive, not wanting to take on more responsibilities or promise a higher level of service because that just invites more things to go wrong.
And this balkanization of the corporate departments prevents the sort of cooperation and cross-training necessary for getting things done successfully.
In a healthy company, the operations side knows what the hell it's doing and IT can learn how the business operates and suggest solutions that the operations side might not even know they should ask for.
And likewise, operations people will learn more about how their systems operate and the full extend of the features they're not utilizing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833160</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>dwpro</author>
	<datestamp>1264007880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The biggest payback from IT is saving money...</p></div></blockquote><p>I think there are a variety of benefits from integration of technology into a business.  A given technology service might make the business process faster, less tedious, more accurate, more traceable, or more manageable.  Not all of those features translate directly into the bottom line, though many times they affect it indirectly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest payback from IT is saving money...I think there are a variety of benefits from integration of technology into a business .
A given technology service might make the business process faster , less tedious , more accurate , more traceable , or more manageable .
Not all of those features translate directly into the bottom line , though many times they affect it indirectly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest payback from IT is saving money...I think there are a variety of benefits from integration of technology into a business.
A given technology service might make the business process faster, less tedious, more accurate, more traceable, or more manageable.
Not all of those features translate directly into the bottom line, though many times they affect it indirectly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263911520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Install Windows updates, latest security patches: Ongoing cost, $1.1million annual: profit, $0.   Return on investment: 0\%.
</p><p>
Backup the servers with all the business documents, records, and databases:
Cost: $5 million annual, profit: $0.  ROI: 0\%.
</p><p>
Of course there is a risk of an adverse event, such as a security attack, or a hardware failure.
</p><p>
But most likely it will not happen.
</p><p>
How do you quantify projects in terms of "ROI" in scenarios like that?
</p><p>
How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours,  versus  300 hours,  or versus no recovery at all?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Install Windows updates , latest security patches : Ongoing cost , $ 1.1million annual : profit , $ 0 .
Return on investment : 0 \ % .
Backup the servers with all the business documents , records , and databases : Cost : $ 5 million annual , profit : $ 0 .
ROI : 0 \ % .
Of course there is a risk of an adverse event , such as a security attack , or a hardware failure .
But most likely it will not happen .
How do you quantify projects in terms of " ROI " in scenarios like that ?
How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours , versus 300 hours , or versus no recovery at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Install Windows updates, latest security patches: Ongoing cost, $1.1million annual: profit, $0.
Return on investment: 0\%.
Backup the servers with all the business documents, records, and databases:
Cost: $5 million annual, profit: $0.
ROI: 0\%.
Of course there is a risk of an adverse event, such as a security attack, or a hardware failure.
But most likely it will not happen.
How do you quantify projects in terms of "ROI" in scenarios like that?
How can you say there is a ROI involved in being able to recover everything within 5 hours,  versus  300 hours,  or versus no recovery at all?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829864</id>
	<title>Value Chain Analysis</title>
	<author>hayriye</author>
	<datestamp>1263985500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing is mystreous. From the well-known "Value Chain Analysis" perspective, IT is in "Support Activity" category and must be treated as such.
<p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value\_chain" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value\_chain</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is mystreous .
From the well-known " Value Chain Analysis " perspective , IT is in " Support Activity " category and must be treated as such .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value \ _chain [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is mystreous.
From the well-known "Value Chain Analysis" perspective, IT is in "Support Activity" category and must be treated as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value\_chain [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826788</id>
	<title>Re:Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>AlXtreme</author>
	<datestamp>1263907320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the contrary. It means you've just hired a consultant who will lead you up shit-creek for quadruple the cost of a "solution" that would have gotten the job done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the contrary .
It means you 've just hired a consultant who will lead you up shit-creek for quadruple the cost of a " solution " that would have gotten the job done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the contrary.
It means you've just hired a consultant who will lead you up shit-creek for quadruple the cost of a "solution" that would have gotten the job done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825124</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1263898440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is critical to a really great business.  If your business's IT group is developing applications to enhance productivity or to implement new paths for doing business, they really need to know how you're working.  Boilerplate applications may not be customized enough to truly enhance things.  It might work, but it might not work well enough to make things more efficient, draw in new business, etc.  Having your IT staff sit down with employees and learn what they do makes a huge difference in the usefulness of the application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is critical to a really great business .
If your business 's IT group is developing applications to enhance productivity or to implement new paths for doing business , they really need to know how you 're working .
Boilerplate applications may not be customized enough to truly enhance things .
It might work , but it might not work well enough to make things more efficient , draw in new business , etc .
Having your IT staff sit down with employees and learn what they do makes a huge difference in the usefulness of the application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is critical to a really great business.
If your business's IT group is developing applications to enhance productivity or to implement new paths for doing business, they really need to know how you're working.
Boilerplate applications may not be customized enough to truly enhance things.
It might work, but it might not work well enough to make things more efficient, draw in new business, etc.
Having your IT staff sit down with employees and learn what they do makes a huge difference in the usefulness of the application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826102</id>
	<title>Re:IT-as-a-business also positions it as antagonis</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1263902820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's set up as a business, then people are less likely to ask for little things because they cost money.  This can be bad, because it may make people limit their requests.  However, it can also be good, because it means there are fewer bogus requests.</p><p>If IT is not set up as a business then it's very tricky to determine where time/money/effort should be spent because it's hard to know what requests are important and which ones are just would-be-nice.</p><p>There needs to be some sort of accountability between the other areas of the business and IT.  One way of doing that is to force the other areas to pay for the work that they want to get done.</p><p>If the company is small enough, this can all be done informally.  When you've got tens of thousands of people, it becomes a much different ballgame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's set up as a business , then people are less likely to ask for little things because they cost money .
This can be bad , because it may make people limit their requests .
However , it can also be good , because it means there are fewer bogus requests.If IT is not set up as a business then it 's very tricky to determine where time/money/effort should be spent because it 's hard to know what requests are important and which ones are just would-be-nice.There needs to be some sort of accountability between the other areas of the business and IT .
One way of doing that is to force the other areas to pay for the work that they want to get done.If the company is small enough , this can all be done informally .
When you 've got tens of thousands of people , it becomes a much different ballgame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's set up as a business, then people are less likely to ask for little things because they cost money.
This can be bad, because it may make people limit their requests.
However, it can also be good, because it means there are fewer bogus requests.If IT is not set up as a business then it's very tricky to determine where time/money/effort should be spent because it's hard to know what requests are important and which ones are just would-be-nice.There needs to be some sort of accountability between the other areas of the business and IT.
One way of doing that is to force the other areas to pay for the work that they want to get done.If the company is small enough, this can all be done informally.
When you've got tens of thousands of people, it becomes a much different ballgame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825148</id>
	<title>The blind spots.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1263898560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT is still young. And we have an extremely muddled labor pool that is mixed with young geniuses and out-of-date veterans, as well as idiot young guns and some older people who *really* know what they are doing.</p><p>The problem with this situation is that from everyone's own perspective, it becomes extremely difficult for everyone else to make the right decision.</p><p>A novice non-IT business is the perfect target for a one-stop shop type of IT outsourcing company. They will never truly understand what you need, teach you anything, or explain exactly what you are paying for. You will get propriety solutions and pay a heavy margin for maintenance. Yes, they will meet requirements, but this is far from ideal.</p><p>Another pitfall is hiring the true techie to *manage* an IT department or an IT solution. There is a HUUUGE difference between someone who excels at technical knowhow and accuracy, and someone who sees the whole picture, can work with people, and can make compromises when weighing non-technical priorities.</p><p>The best scenario for any company is to find a savvy insider early and hire them. This person might not be able to do everything themselves, but they will know good from bad. They will also be close to management and will be pragmatic about implementing the needs of the company. Give this person sufficient resources, and you are good to go. Of course, whether or not you hired such a person, you may never know. If you actually have such a person *in* management, then you are ahead of the curve.</p><p>One thing is for certain though. New businesses that embrace IT will have a distinct edge. If you work at a fairly young company that doesn't care about their web page, or is losing business to competitors that do, I would get ready to jump ship. Seriously, IT can make or break even a restaurant (eg. SEO and yelp management).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT is still young .
And we have an extremely muddled labor pool that is mixed with young geniuses and out-of-date veterans , as well as idiot young guns and some older people who * really * know what they are doing.The problem with this situation is that from everyone 's own perspective , it becomes extremely difficult for everyone else to make the right decision.A novice non-IT business is the perfect target for a one-stop shop type of IT outsourcing company .
They will never truly understand what you need , teach you anything , or explain exactly what you are paying for .
You will get propriety solutions and pay a heavy margin for maintenance .
Yes , they will meet requirements , but this is far from ideal.Another pitfall is hiring the true techie to * manage * an IT department or an IT solution .
There is a HUUUGE difference between someone who excels at technical knowhow and accuracy , and someone who sees the whole picture , can work with people , and can make compromises when weighing non-technical priorities.The best scenario for any company is to find a savvy insider early and hire them .
This person might not be able to do everything themselves , but they will know good from bad .
They will also be close to management and will be pragmatic about implementing the needs of the company .
Give this person sufficient resources , and you are good to go .
Of course , whether or not you hired such a person , you may never know .
If you actually have such a person * in * management , then you are ahead of the curve.One thing is for certain though .
New businesses that embrace IT will have a distinct edge .
If you work at a fairly young company that does n't care about their web page , or is losing business to competitors that do , I would get ready to jump ship .
Seriously , IT can make or break even a restaurant ( eg .
SEO and yelp management ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT is still young.
And we have an extremely muddled labor pool that is mixed with young geniuses and out-of-date veterans, as well as idiot young guns and some older people who *really* know what they are doing.The problem with this situation is that from everyone's own perspective, it becomes extremely difficult for everyone else to make the right decision.A novice non-IT business is the perfect target for a one-stop shop type of IT outsourcing company.
They will never truly understand what you need, teach you anything, or explain exactly what you are paying for.
You will get propriety solutions and pay a heavy margin for maintenance.
Yes, they will meet requirements, but this is far from ideal.Another pitfall is hiring the true techie to *manage* an IT department or an IT solution.
There is a HUUUGE difference between someone who excels at technical knowhow and accuracy, and someone who sees the whole picture, can work with people, and can make compromises when weighing non-technical priorities.The best scenario for any company is to find a savvy insider early and hire them.
This person might not be able to do everything themselves, but they will know good from bad.
They will also be close to management and will be pragmatic about implementing the needs of the company.
Give this person sufficient resources, and you are good to go.
Of course, whether or not you hired such a person, you may never know.
If you actually have such a person *in* management, then you are ahead of the curve.One thing is for certain though.
New businesses that embrace IT will have a distinct edge.
If you work at a fairly young company that doesn't care about their web page, or is losing business to competitors that do, I would get ready to jump ship.
Seriously, IT can make or break even a restaurant (eg.
SEO and yelp management).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825914</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>satcomjimmy</author>
	<datestamp>1263901800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.  Yet I see that a lot.  Not what works best, but what the techs know.  Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.</p></div><p>I agree with your philosophy, but there is a limit. When you are critically and chronically understaffed and underfunded to the point that you do not have spares, or training dollars, or more than one person to handle multiple enterprise systems, you cannot keep up with what is already installed, let alone use a different vendor or solution for every new item coming in the door. When my "internal customers" continue to expand operations sometimes my expertise in one particular product or vendor is what allows me to even get them working, but I can't do it optimally, or cheaply when I don't have any time to work on it or money for R&amp;D or training.
Optimally, the bean counters would look at it and see that the waste we are forced to choose every day would easily be lessened by directing some people and funding to us before funding all the projects that require our input and efforts to make work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money , not what your technical people know and where they 've invested their training .
Yet I see that a lot .
Not what works best , but what the techs know .
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.I agree with your philosophy , but there is a limit .
When you are critically and chronically understaffed and underfunded to the point that you do not have spares , or training dollars , or more than one person to handle multiple enterprise systems , you can not keep up with what is already installed , let alone use a different vendor or solution for every new item coming in the door .
When my " internal customers " continue to expand operations sometimes my expertise in one particular product or vendor is what allows me to even get them working , but I ca n't do it optimally , or cheaply when I do n't have any time to work on it or money for R&amp;D or training .
Optimally , the bean counters would look at it and see that the waste we are forced to choose every day would easily be lessened by directing some people and funding to us before funding all the projects that require our input and efforts to make work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.
Yet I see that a lot.
Not what works best, but what the techs know.
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.I agree with your philosophy, but there is a limit.
When you are critically and chronically understaffed and underfunded to the point that you do not have spares, or training dollars, or more than one person to handle multiple enterprise systems, you cannot keep up with what is already installed, let alone use a different vendor or solution for every new item coming in the door.
When my "internal customers" continue to expand operations sometimes my expertise in one particular product or vendor is what allows me to even get them working, but I can't do it optimally, or cheaply when I don't have any time to work on it or money for R&amp;D or training.
Optimally, the bean counters would look at it and see that the waste we are forced to choose every day would easily be lessened by directing some people and funding to us before funding all the projects that require our input and efforts to make work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825388</id>
	<title>IT</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1263899520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT's job is to <em>facilitate</em> the rest of the company with regard to technology.  Period.</p><p>It's their job to make IT stuff work, make it work faster, make it more reliable, and easier to use.</p><p>Running it as a separate entity, or one in which the IT staff don't have to have a clue about the domain the company works in is foolish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT 's job is to facilitate the rest of the company with regard to technology .
Period.It 's their job to make IT stuff work , make it work faster , make it more reliable , and easier to use.Running it as a separate entity , or one in which the IT staff do n't have to have a clue about the domain the company works in is foolish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT's job is to facilitate the rest of the company with regard to technology.
Period.It's their job to make IT stuff work, make it work faster, make it more reliable, and easier to use.Running it as a separate entity, or one in which the IT staff don't have to have a clue about the domain the company works in is foolish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826352</id>
	<title>Putting a finger on it.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1263904260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers,"</p></div><p>Any business inside a business is a bad idea!! Businesses are *not* your friend. Think about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When IT is a business , selling to its " internal customers , " Any business inside a business is a bad idea ! !
Businesses are * not * your friend .
Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When IT is a business, selling to its "internal customers,"Any business inside a business is a bad idea!!
Businesses are *not* your friend.
Think about it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824936</id>
	<title>Outsourcing in general sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say in general that outsourcing anything sucks. I suspect the only exception is if the business is very small - too small to occupy at least one full time person. After that, you're better off bringing it inside, whatever the role.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say in general that outsourcing anything sucks .
I suspect the only exception is if the business is very small - too small to occupy at least one full time person .
After that , you 're better off bringing it inside , whatever the role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say in general that outsourcing anything sucks.
I suspect the only exception is if the business is very small - too small to occupy at least one full time person.
After that, you're better off bringing it inside, whatever the role.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826964</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Gorobei</author>
	<datestamp>1263908640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty much the way we do things at my firm.</p><p>1.  Given there is always more work requested than can be achieved, we (a tech group) just prioritorize by revenuesOfRequestor/effortRequired.  Then we make those projects work and take our cut.  If a project fails, we get nothing.<br>2.  We try to match speed of delivery vs operational risk to those of the business we are working with.  So, some get software that changes several times a day with frequent short-term blowups versus others who get more stable software with less responsiveness.<br>3.  If you can achieve 1 and 2, your accountants will not be controlling things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much the way we do things at my firm.1 .
Given there is always more work requested than can be achieved , we ( a tech group ) just prioritorize by revenuesOfRequestor/effortRequired .
Then we make those projects work and take our cut .
If a project fails , we get nothing.2 .
We try to match speed of delivery vs operational risk to those of the business we are working with .
So , some get software that changes several times a day with frequent short-term blowups versus others who get more stable software with less responsiveness.3 .
If you can achieve 1 and 2 , your accountants will not be controlling things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much the way we do things at my firm.1.
Given there is always more work requested than can be achieved, we (a tech group) just prioritorize by revenuesOfRequestor/effortRequired.
Then we make those projects work and take our cut.
If a project fails, we get nothing.2.
We try to match speed of delivery vs operational risk to those of the business we are working with.
So, some get software that changes several times a day with frequent short-term blowups versus others who get more stable software with less responsiveness.3.
If you can achieve 1 and 2, your accountants will not be controlling things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825064</id>
	<title>Economics versus Job Satisfaction</title>
	<author>Mr\_Tulip</author>
	<datestamp>1263898200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sentiment portrayed by the author of that article is a very common one among IT workers. That somehow, our best efforts are undermined by the need for our work to be costed, audited and planned by external (to us) business interests.<br>I personally try and produce code that meets and exceeds the business requirement, and does so within the time-frame set by the business. The problem, I think is that software engineers, in general, are a bunch of perfectionists, and we like to hold off announcing a 'final version' until the last possible moment. (Google Mail was in beta for how long?)<p>What I have come to realize, though, is that it is not just the IT departments that feel this way. In general, there are some people in every department, of every company that belive that their performance would improve if only they had a greater measure of self-determination. Perhaps the number of people who feel this way is highest in IT, but it is certainly not exclusive to IT.<br>So what it comes down to, I feel, is that we are slowly drifting towards a business culture where the individual has more control over their job, and where sucess is measured by job satisfaction instead of economics. </p><p> At least, that's the direction I <i>hope</i> we are heading in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sentiment portrayed by the author of that article is a very common one among IT workers .
That somehow , our best efforts are undermined by the need for our work to be costed , audited and planned by external ( to us ) business interests.I personally try and produce code that meets and exceeds the business requirement , and does so within the time-frame set by the business .
The problem , I think is that software engineers , in general , are a bunch of perfectionists , and we like to hold off announcing a 'final version ' until the last possible moment .
( Google Mail was in beta for how long ?
) What I have come to realize , though , is that it is not just the IT departments that feel this way .
In general , there are some people in every department , of every company that belive that their performance would improve if only they had a greater measure of self-determination .
Perhaps the number of people who feel this way is highest in IT , but it is certainly not exclusive to IT.So what it comes down to , I feel , is that we are slowly drifting towards a business culture where the individual has more control over their job , and where sucess is measured by job satisfaction instead of economics .
At least , that 's the direction I hope we are heading in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sentiment portrayed by the author of that article is a very common one among IT workers.
That somehow, our best efforts are undermined by the need for our work to be costed, audited and planned by external (to us) business interests.I personally try and produce code that meets and exceeds the business requirement, and does so within the time-frame set by the business.
The problem, I think is that software engineers, in general, are a bunch of perfectionists, and we like to hold off announcing a 'final version' until the last possible moment.
(Google Mail was in beta for how long?
)What I have come to realize, though, is that it is not just the IT departments that feel this way.
In general, there are some people in every department, of every company that belive that their performance would improve if only they had a greater measure of self-determination.
Perhaps the number of people who feel this way is highest in IT, but it is certainly not exclusive to IT.So what it comes down to, I feel, is that we are slowly drifting towards a business culture where the individual has more control over their job, and where sucess is measured by job satisfaction instead of economics.
At least, that's the direction I hope we are heading in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827844</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the layoffs we had last year (20\% of our IT dept.) we stopped using an incredibly complex charge back model.  IT used to charge various divisions/departments based on use of various services the whole company uses.  For some this was horribly complex and took a week or so to come up with numbers for each dept., then we had to make tiny adjustments for another week as they all complained.  Now each user is charged the same regardless of use.  It doesn't give a very accurate picture of what each dept. costs but it was simpler/faster to calculate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the layoffs we had last year ( 20 \ % of our IT dept .
) we stopped using an incredibly complex charge back model .
IT used to charge various divisions/departments based on use of various services the whole company uses .
For some this was horribly complex and took a week or so to come up with numbers for each dept. , then we had to make tiny adjustments for another week as they all complained .
Now each user is charged the same regardless of use .
It does n't give a very accurate picture of what each dept .
costs but it was simpler/faster to calculate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the layoffs we had last year (20\% of our IT dept.
) we stopped using an incredibly complex charge back model.
IT used to charge various divisions/departments based on use of various services the whole company uses.
For some this was horribly complex and took a week or so to come up with numbers for each dept., then we had to make tiny adjustments for another week as they all complained.
Now each user is charged the same regardless of use.
It doesn't give a very accurate picture of what each dept.
costs but it was simpler/faster to calculate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828416</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263922560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said this many times before: As an IT guy, it doesn't offend me if you think of IT guys as janitors.  It bothers me more to think that you don't respect your janitors.
</p><p>No, neither IT nor janitors directly bring in revenue.  Generally management doesn't bring in revenue either.  In a certain sense, developers don't even bring in revenue.  The only people who bring in revenue are sales people, and everyone else costs money.  But you can't have a business with all salesmen and no product, can you?
</p><p>Try running your business without your janitors and see how much revenue you bring in.  Bring a client into a meeting where trash is all over the ground and the entire office smelling like someone took a dump under the front desk.  Keep your employees from quitting when the bathrooms haven't been cleaned in 5 years.  It's true that janitors don't produce revenue, but only enable developers to do their jobs, but developers only enable salesmen to do their job by giving them a product to sell.
</p><p>But then again, salesmen only enable developers to do their jobs by finding someone to buy the software the developers create.  And they're all getting paid from income to the company that wouldn't exist if not for the janitors.  Janitors get paid little enough in money; the least we can do is pay them a little in respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said this many times before : As an IT guy , it does n't offend me if you think of IT guys as janitors .
It bothers me more to think that you do n't respect your janitors .
No , neither IT nor janitors directly bring in revenue .
Generally management does n't bring in revenue either .
In a certain sense , developers do n't even bring in revenue .
The only people who bring in revenue are sales people , and everyone else costs money .
But you ca n't have a business with all salesmen and no product , can you ?
Try running your business without your janitors and see how much revenue you bring in .
Bring a client into a meeting where trash is all over the ground and the entire office smelling like someone took a dump under the front desk .
Keep your employees from quitting when the bathrooms have n't been cleaned in 5 years .
It 's true that janitors do n't produce revenue , but only enable developers to do their jobs , but developers only enable salesmen to do their job by giving them a product to sell .
But then again , salesmen only enable developers to do their jobs by finding someone to buy the software the developers create .
And they 're all getting paid from income to the company that would n't exist if not for the janitors .
Janitors get paid little enough in money ; the least we can do is pay them a little in respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said this many times before: As an IT guy, it doesn't offend me if you think of IT guys as janitors.
It bothers me more to think that you don't respect your janitors.
No, neither IT nor janitors directly bring in revenue.
Generally management doesn't bring in revenue either.
In a certain sense, developers don't even bring in revenue.
The only people who bring in revenue are sales people, and everyone else costs money.
But you can't have a business with all salesmen and no product, can you?
Try running your business without your janitors and see how much revenue you bring in.
Bring a client into a meeting where trash is all over the ground and the entire office smelling like someone took a dump under the front desk.
Keep your employees from quitting when the bathrooms haven't been cleaned in 5 years.
It's true that janitors don't produce revenue, but only enable developers to do their jobs, but developers only enable salesmen to do their job by giving them a product to sell.
But then again, salesmen only enable developers to do their jobs by finding someone to buy the software the developers create.
And they're all getting paid from income to the company that wouldn't exist if not for the janitors.
Janitors get paid little enough in money; the least we can do is pay them a little in respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827038</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1263909120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot disagree more. A service is something like the ex-sailor who comes to freshen up the plants. For most modern businesses IT is worthy of consideration as a constant opportunity for making more money - by speeding up and streamlining processes. Sometimes this comes with new technologies which on IT people have the knowledge and perspective to understand. Web Services and such like.<br>Treating IT as a service is what gets us into the position of hiring idiot cube monkeys.<br>IMHO of course<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not disagree more .
A service is something like the ex-sailor who comes to freshen up the plants .
For most modern businesses IT is worthy of consideration as a constant opportunity for making more money - by speeding up and streamlining processes .
Sometimes this comes with new technologies which on IT people have the knowledge and perspective to understand .
Web Services and such like.Treating IT as a service is what gets us into the position of hiring idiot cube monkeys.IMHO of course : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot disagree more.
A service is something like the ex-sailor who comes to freshen up the plants.
For most modern businesses IT is worthy of consideration as a constant opportunity for making more money - by speeding up and streamlining processes.
Sometimes this comes with new technologies which on IT people have the knowledge and perspective to understand.
Web Services and such like.Treating IT as a service is what gets us into the position of hiring idiot cube monkeys.IMHO of course :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830004</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Corbets</author>
	<datestamp>1263987180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But that fits with the GP's concept of "saving the company money". I'm going to fall back into MBA mode here, but it's an important concept: net present value. Calculate the value of doing things now versus the value of doing other things with those resources; does it better serve the business to do some of those things later in the long run?</p><p>So you're right - but I think that's what was intended by the GP.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But that fits with the GP 's concept of " saving the company money " .
I 'm going to fall back into MBA mode here , but it 's an important concept : net present value .
Calculate the value of doing things now versus the value of doing other things with those resources ; does it better serve the business to do some of those things later in the long run ? So you 're right - but I think that 's what was intended by the GP .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But that fits with the GP's concept of "saving the company money".
I'm going to fall back into MBA mode here, but it's an important concept: net present value.
Calculate the value of doing things now versus the value of doing other things with those resources; does it better serve the business to do some of those things later in the long run?So you're right - but I think that's what was intended by the GP.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825486</id>
	<title>Re:Poor communication skills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, no it doesn't. Seeing IT as a separate business sets up an adversarial relationship, which necessarily degrades communication. But communication "skills" have nothing to do with what he's putting forth.<br>Can you back this up with examples?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no it does n't .
Seeing IT as a separate business sets up an adversarial relationship , which necessarily degrades communication .
But communication " skills " have nothing to do with what he 's putting forth.Can you back this up with examples ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no it doesn't.
Seeing IT as a separate business sets up an adversarial relationship, which necessarily degrades communication.
But communication "skills" have nothing to do with what he's putting forth.Can you back this up with examples?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824976</id>
	<title>IT is not a business,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is actually an interpretive dance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is actually an interpretive dance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is actually an interpretive dance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828252</id>
	<title>Re:Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263921060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I stumbled across that passage too, but you can understand what he's getting at if you strip out the buzzwords.  What he's pointing out is that there's this mode of dealing with IT where businesses make requests on IT like, "Make a web app that do exactly this," and then the IT department goes about producing those regardless of whether it's the best solution to the problem.  The IT department doesn't necessarily ever learn what it is that the business is trying to accomplish; all the IT department does is follow orders as though they're independent contractors and the rest of the business is a customer.
</p><p>What he's suggesting instead is that the IT department takes the time to learn what it is that the business is trying to do and why and is involved in business discussions.  From there, IT is in a position to help develop the business processes to be more efficient.  If the IT management is working more directly with the other managers, then when the managers say, "I want a web app that does exactly this," then IT can say, "Actually you don't.  I know exactly what you're trying to do, but because I know more about computers than you do, I know that the web app you're suggesting isn't the best solution.  It would be better if we could do [whatever-- insert appropriate buzzwords here].  Then we could get all the benefits from the web app you propose, but it would be more efficient and easier to maintain."
</p><p>Basically what he's pointing out is that computers have become so central to the operations of many businesses that you can't have business decisions and IT decisions made by two separate management teams that aren't really talking to each other.  You have to try to make IT a full member of the team, and not an in-house outside contractor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I stumbled across that passage too , but you can understand what he 's getting at if you strip out the buzzwords .
What he 's pointing out is that there 's this mode of dealing with IT where businesses make requests on IT like , " Make a web app that do exactly this , " and then the IT department goes about producing those regardless of whether it 's the best solution to the problem .
The IT department does n't necessarily ever learn what it is that the business is trying to accomplish ; all the IT department does is follow orders as though they 're independent contractors and the rest of the business is a customer .
What he 's suggesting instead is that the IT department takes the time to learn what it is that the business is trying to do and why and is involved in business discussions .
From there , IT is in a position to help develop the business processes to be more efficient .
If the IT management is working more directly with the other managers , then when the managers say , " I want a web app that does exactly this , " then IT can say , " Actually you do n't .
I know exactly what you 're trying to do , but because I know more about computers than you do , I know that the web app you 're suggesting is n't the best solution .
It would be better if we could do [ whatever-- insert appropriate buzzwords here ] .
Then we could get all the benefits from the web app you propose , but it would be more efficient and easier to maintain .
" Basically what he 's pointing out is that computers have become so central to the operations of many businesses that you ca n't have business decisions and IT decisions made by two separate management teams that are n't really talking to each other .
You have to try to make IT a full member of the team , and not an in-house outside contractor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I stumbled across that passage too, but you can understand what he's getting at if you strip out the buzzwords.
What he's pointing out is that there's this mode of dealing with IT where businesses make requests on IT like, "Make a web app that do exactly this," and then the IT department goes about producing those regardless of whether it's the best solution to the problem.
The IT department doesn't necessarily ever learn what it is that the business is trying to accomplish; all the IT department does is follow orders as though they're independent contractors and the rest of the business is a customer.
What he's suggesting instead is that the IT department takes the time to learn what it is that the business is trying to do and why and is involved in business discussions.
From there, IT is in a position to help develop the business processes to be more efficient.
If the IT management is working more directly with the other managers, then when the managers say, "I want a web app that does exactly this," then IT can say, "Actually you don't.
I know exactly what you're trying to do, but because I know more about computers than you do, I know that the web app you're suggesting isn't the best solution.
It would be better if we could do [whatever-- insert appropriate buzzwords here].
Then we could get all the benefits from the web app you propose, but it would be more efficient and easier to maintain.
"
Basically what he's pointing out is that computers have become so central to the operations of many businesses that you can't have business decisions and IT decisions made by two separate management teams that aren't really talking to each other.
You have to try to make IT a full member of the team, and not an in-house outside contractor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826108</id>
	<title>Re:NO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw it, I was going to mod a whole bunch of posts in this thread, but your comment is so stupid I just have to respond.</p><p>While you're right that "IT as a Business" is wrong, what your advocating is "IT as Lord high protector of all Technology" and its just as wrong.</p><p>IT must work to achieve the business goals, and IT's software must work to achieve the business goals.  The buisness' primary goal is to make money, not to have secure IT.  Sure, a secondary goal of the business is secure IT, but its SECONDARY to the functioning of the business.</p><p>When the business needs a system to perform some function it must either be:</p><p>1) involved in creating the product of the business<br>2) involved in managing the process of creating the product of the business (the accounting, sales, marketing, etc.) big area here<br>3) directly selling or distributing the product (web sales, digital data, etc.)</p><p>That's it.  Your tight security is not one of the business needs.  Now, for option 3 above, your site better be secure and safe and reliable, or you risk not moving product.  But your security decisions in this case are to protect the business model, not to pretend you're an NSA agent.  You need to reasonably expound on the business case for the security protection you want to install, because its an overhead cost to the business in producing the product.  Do your risk analysis, show the costs, do the BUSINESS focused due diligence to achieve the security you need to have while still providing the services to customers that need to be provided.  In too many cases I've seen security edicts that would rather shut down or routinely break a business function (many times for the lamest of reason) than be flexible or even cooperative with security policies and settings.</p><p>When IT touts security guidelines that live outside the business they're setting themselves up to get cut out of the process until all the people who keep the hard and fast "thou shalt not" security rules get pushed aside.</p><p>Its better to work with the business folks and present real business cases, that to point to some complicated software exploit and say "we need to stop this".  The money you get paid should be used to support being able to bridge the knowledge difference and be able to convey a complicated software exploit to the business.</p><p>IT exists to provide the business with technology to do what the business needs to do.  Too often IT embraces its separation from the "regular" parts of the company.  And it always does this at its own peril.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw it , I was going to mod a whole bunch of posts in this thread , but your comment is so stupid I just have to respond.While you 're right that " IT as a Business " is wrong , what your advocating is " IT as Lord high protector of all Technology " and its just as wrong.IT must work to achieve the business goals , and IT 's software must work to achieve the business goals .
The buisness ' primary goal is to make money , not to have secure IT .
Sure , a secondary goal of the business is secure IT , but its SECONDARY to the functioning of the business.When the business needs a system to perform some function it must either be : 1 ) involved in creating the product of the business2 ) involved in managing the process of creating the product of the business ( the accounting , sales , marketing , etc .
) big area here3 ) directly selling or distributing the product ( web sales , digital data , etc .
) That 's it .
Your tight security is not one of the business needs .
Now , for option 3 above , your site better be secure and safe and reliable , or you risk not moving product .
But your security decisions in this case are to protect the business model , not to pretend you 're an NSA agent .
You need to reasonably expound on the business case for the security protection you want to install , because its an overhead cost to the business in producing the product .
Do your risk analysis , show the costs , do the BUSINESS focused due diligence to achieve the security you need to have while still providing the services to customers that need to be provided .
In too many cases I 've seen security edicts that would rather shut down or routinely break a business function ( many times for the lamest of reason ) than be flexible or even cooperative with security policies and settings.When IT touts security guidelines that live outside the business they 're setting themselves up to get cut out of the process until all the people who keep the hard and fast " thou shalt not " security rules get pushed aside.Its better to work with the business folks and present real business cases , that to point to some complicated software exploit and say " we need to stop this " .
The money you get paid should be used to support being able to bridge the knowledge difference and be able to convey a complicated software exploit to the business.IT exists to provide the business with technology to do what the business needs to do .
Too often IT embraces its separation from the " regular " parts of the company .
And it always does this at its own peril .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw it, I was going to mod a whole bunch of posts in this thread, but your comment is so stupid I just have to respond.While you're right that "IT as a Business" is wrong, what your advocating is "IT as Lord high protector of all Technology" and its just as wrong.IT must work to achieve the business goals, and IT's software must work to achieve the business goals.
The buisness' primary goal is to make money, not to have secure IT.
Sure, a secondary goal of the business is secure IT, but its SECONDARY to the functioning of the business.When the business needs a system to perform some function it must either be:1) involved in creating the product of the business2) involved in managing the process of creating the product of the business (the accounting, sales, marketing, etc.
) big area here3) directly selling or distributing the product (web sales, digital data, etc.
)That's it.
Your tight security is not one of the business needs.
Now, for option 3 above, your site better be secure and safe and reliable, or you risk not moving product.
But your security decisions in this case are to protect the business model, not to pretend you're an NSA agent.
You need to reasonably expound on the business case for the security protection you want to install, because its an overhead cost to the business in producing the product.
Do your risk analysis, show the costs, do the BUSINESS focused due diligence to achieve the security you need to have while still providing the services to customers that need to be provided.
In too many cases I've seen security edicts that would rather shut down or routinely break a business function (many times for the lamest of reason) than be flexible or even cooperative with security policies and settings.When IT touts security guidelines that live outside the business they're setting themselves up to get cut out of the process until all the people who keep the hard and fast "thou shalt not" security rules get pushed aside.Its better to work with the business folks and present real business cases, that to point to some complicated software exploit and say "we need to stop this".
The money you get paid should be used to support being able to bridge the knowledge difference and be able to convey a complicated software exploit to the business.IT exists to provide the business with technology to do what the business needs to do.
Too often IT embraces its separation from the "regular" parts of the company.
And it always does this at its own peril.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</id>
	<title>Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1263896460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually went and read the article (I know as a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.er, I'm not supposed to, and I apologize). The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly). When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately. But I damn sure don't expect them to tell me "Sorry, but we don't answer to you as an individual anymore--we have our own grand plan now and, if you want an upgrade, you'll have to present the big picture at next year's board meeting. We don't install specifics."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually went and read the article ( I know as a /.er , I 'm not supposed to , and I apologize ) .
The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already ( and most IT depts I 've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly ) .
When I 'm working on an important project , and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade , I certainly do n't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately .
But I damn sure do n't expect them to tell me " Sorry , but we do n't answer to you as an individual anymore--we have our own grand plan now and , if you want an upgrade , you 'll have to present the big picture at next year 's board meeting .
We do n't install specifics .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually went and read the article (I know as a /.er, I'm not supposed to, and I apologize).
The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly).
When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.
But I damn sure don't expect them to tell me "Sorry, but we don't answer to you as an individual anymore--we have our own grand plan now and, if you want an upgrade, you'll have to present the big picture at next year's board meeting.
We don't install specifics.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825092</id>
	<title>TFA is Confused</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do"</p><p>Uhhh...you mean like a BUSINESS PROCESS inside any business?  Yes.  Then IT should be treated as a business process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise , and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do " Uhhh...you mean like a BUSINESS PROCESS inside any business ?
Yes. Then IT should be treated as a business process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do"Uhhh...you mean like a BUSINESS PROCESS inside any business?
Yes.  Then IT should be treated as a business process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830728</id>
	<title>What exactly is new here?</title>
	<author>Zediker</author>
	<datestamp>1263996120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry, but what exactly is he stating that isnt already in software development 101? You're suposed to work hand-in-hand with your customer as you develop software, how else can you even guarantee that you meet a modicum of their need? If they are not willing to spend the time with your developers as the solution progresses, then the customer really doesnt care about what they 'want' or you're working with the wrong person/people.
<br> <br>
Seriously, he's just stating the obvious...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but what exactly is he stating that isnt already in software development 101 ?
You 're suposed to work hand-in-hand with your customer as you develop software , how else can you even guarantee that you meet a modicum of their need ?
If they are not willing to spend the time with your developers as the solution progresses , then the customer really doesnt care about what they 'want ' or you 're working with the wrong person/people .
Seriously , he 's just stating the obvious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but what exactly is he stating that isnt already in software development 101?
You're suposed to work hand-in-hand with your customer as you develop software, how else can you even guarantee that you meet a modicum of their need?
If they are not willing to spend the time with your developers as the solution progresses, then the customer really doesnt care about what they 'want' or you're working with the wrong person/people.
Seriously, he's just stating the obvious...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824678</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Em Emalb</author>
	<datestamp>1263896520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No he's wrong, if he considers "IT" to be software development.  It's not.</p><p>It's software development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No he 's wrong , if he considers " IT " to be software development .
It 's not.It 's software development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No he's wrong, if he considers "IT" to be software development.
It's not.It's software development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825020</id>
	<title>"Customer" dominates - bad. IT dominates - bad</title>
	<author>magbottle</author>
	<datestamp>1263898020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT departments and their "customers" are partners in accomplishing the tasks the company must perform to be successful (or simply stay in business).</p><p>When the "customer" is able to contort IT to their wishes to make their job easier, or when IT is able to contort their customers to their wishes to make \_their\_ jobs easier, the more the corporate mechanism falls apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT departments and their " customers " are partners in accomplishing the tasks the company must perform to be successful ( or simply stay in business ) .When the " customer " is able to contort IT to their wishes to make their job easier , or when IT is able to contort their customers to their wishes to make \ _their \ _ jobs easier , the more the corporate mechanism falls apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT departments and their "customers" are partners in accomplishing the tasks the company must perform to be successful (or simply stay in business).When the "customer" is able to contort IT to their wishes to make their job easier, or when IT is able to contort their customers to their wishes to make \_their\_ jobs easier, the more the corporate mechanism falls apart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832570</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1264005840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a large investment firm in the mid 90's. We moved from the department paradigm to IT run as a business because the department paradigm meant everyone had 5+ year old computers and were never happy. Justifying budget for anything was like pulling teeth. We moved to the "IT run as a business" paradigm and before we knew it we had the money to put a new desktop on every desk, replace the aging IBM token ring network with a new 100Mbps to the desktop ethernet one. We were able to put in our own data center off site, with a private FDDI loop out to it.</p><p>Life became infinitely better over the space of 2 years where before it was totally stagnated. IT barely had the money to pay their staff because they were viewed as overhead instead of a service.</p><p>We never could have done it the other way. Trust me, as someone that experienced both paradigms out in a real company, the devil you know is far better than the one you don't in some cases. The business units were happy because they could pay a set fee per port instead of getting nickel and dimed. The PC's are leased for 2 years then replaced. If there's a problem with one, we pulled the old one out and just dropped a new one in. Everyone can plan their budget.</p><p>It is a double edged sword however... When business units lay people off, that means ports get cut, so the staffing of the IT organization is more or less tied directly to how the business is doing. It probably should be this way anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a large investment firm in the mid 90 's .
We moved from the department paradigm to IT run as a business because the department paradigm meant everyone had 5 + year old computers and were never happy .
Justifying budget for anything was like pulling teeth .
We moved to the " IT run as a business " paradigm and before we knew it we had the money to put a new desktop on every desk , replace the aging IBM token ring network with a new 100Mbps to the desktop ethernet one .
We were able to put in our own data center off site , with a private FDDI loop out to it.Life became infinitely better over the space of 2 years where before it was totally stagnated .
IT barely had the money to pay their staff because they were viewed as overhead instead of a service.We never could have done it the other way .
Trust me , as someone that experienced both paradigms out in a real company , the devil you know is far better than the one you do n't in some cases .
The business units were happy because they could pay a set fee per port instead of getting nickel and dimed .
The PC 's are leased for 2 years then replaced .
If there 's a problem with one , we pulled the old one out and just dropped a new one in .
Everyone can plan their budget.It is a double edged sword however... When business units lay people off , that means ports get cut , so the staffing of the IT organization is more or less tied directly to how the business is doing .
It probably should be this way anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a large investment firm in the mid 90's.
We moved from the department paradigm to IT run as a business because the department paradigm meant everyone had 5+ year old computers and were never happy.
Justifying budget for anything was like pulling teeth.
We moved to the "IT run as a business" paradigm and before we knew it we had the money to put a new desktop on every desk, replace the aging IBM token ring network with a new 100Mbps to the desktop ethernet one.
We were able to put in our own data center off site, with a private FDDI loop out to it.Life became infinitely better over the space of 2 years where before it was totally stagnated.
IT barely had the money to pay their staff because they were viewed as overhead instead of a service.We never could have done it the other way.
Trust me, as someone that experienced both paradigms out in a real company, the devil you know is far better than the one you don't in some cases.
The business units were happy because they could pay a set fee per port instead of getting nickel and dimed.
The PC's are leased for 2 years then replaced.
If there's a problem with one, we pulled the old one out and just dropped a new one in.
Everyone can plan their budget.It is a double edged sword however... When business units lay people off, that means ports get cut, so the staffing of the IT organization is more or less tied directly to how the business is doing.
It probably should be this way anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890</id>
	<title>Sorry, this will never work....</title>
	<author>digitalamish</author>
	<datestamp>1263897600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This concept will only work in an 'enlightened' company, ie one that IS IT.  In a company that sells things or services, it's all based on how many beans you can count.  If you have this completely integrated IT organization, how does the company keep the IT budget under control?  Unless you segregate the work into it's own silo, and then yell it like those Burger King "Angry Whopper Onions", how will costs go down.</p><p>No one sees IT as a partner.  We're not even a business unit in a company.  We're a collection of desklamps and staplers.  I've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA doesn't know anything about tuning an Oracle database.  "But you're IT!"  I've seen very skilled people moved over into jobs they are not trained or qualified for, and then eventually let go because they didn't have the skills for the job.</p><p>I haven't seen many companies that don't down right object to the fact they have to pay for IT.  They don't blink at ordering 1000 new business cards for all the sales people, but ask for a $50 piece of software and you might as well be Oliver asking for more pourage.</p><p>Outsourcing has just made it easier for them to do this.  How are you going to have a strategic partner doing IT, when the IT person you are dealing with is loyal only to the contract you've signed with them and really could care less if the company is growing or not, as long as they get paid.</p><p>Yes, I'm bitter.  I'd love to see the fantasy land where IT is cherished.  Especially outside of an IT company.  I haven't seen it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This concept will only work in an 'enlightened ' company , ie one that IS IT .
In a company that sells things or services , it 's all based on how many beans you can count .
If you have this completely integrated IT organization , how does the company keep the IT budget under control ?
Unless you segregate the work into it 's own silo , and then yell it like those Burger King " Angry Whopper Onions " , how will costs go down.No one sees IT as a partner .
We 're not even a business unit in a company .
We 're a collection of desklamps and staplers .
I 've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA does n't know anything about tuning an Oracle database .
" But you 're IT !
" I 've seen very skilled people moved over into jobs they are not trained or qualified for , and then eventually let go because they did n't have the skills for the job.I have n't seen many companies that do n't down right object to the fact they have to pay for IT .
They do n't blink at ordering 1000 new business cards for all the sales people , but ask for a $ 50 piece of software and you might as well be Oliver asking for more pourage.Outsourcing has just made it easier for them to do this .
How are you going to have a strategic partner doing IT , when the IT person you are dealing with is loyal only to the contract you 've signed with them and really could care less if the company is growing or not , as long as they get paid.Yes , I 'm bitter .
I 'd love to see the fantasy land where IT is cherished .
Especially outside of an IT company .
I have n't seen it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This concept will only work in an 'enlightened' company, ie one that IS IT.
In a company that sells things or services, it's all based on how many beans you can count.
If you have this completely integrated IT organization, how does the company keep the IT budget under control?
Unless you segregate the work into it's own silo, and then yell it like those Burger King "Angry Whopper Onions", how will costs go down.No one sees IT as a partner.
We're not even a business unit in a company.
We're a collection of desklamps and staplers.
I've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA doesn't know anything about tuning an Oracle database.
"But you're IT!
"  I've seen very skilled people moved over into jobs they are not trained or qualified for, and then eventually let go because they didn't have the skills for the job.I haven't seen many companies that don't down right object to the fact they have to pay for IT.
They don't blink at ordering 1000 new business cards for all the sales people, but ask for a $50 piece of software and you might as well be Oliver asking for more pourage.Outsourcing has just made it easier for them to do this.
How are you going to have a strategic partner doing IT, when the IT person you are dealing with is loyal only to the contract you've signed with them and really could care less if the company is growing or not, as long as they get paid.Yes, I'm bitter.
I'd love to see the fantasy land where IT is cherished.
Especially outside of an IT company.
I haven't seen it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827666</id>
	<title>IT is infrastructure</title>
	<author>gilroy</author>
	<datestamp>1263915120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and should be run out of the facilities department, just like plumbing or electrical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and should be run out of the facilities department , just like plumbing or electrical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and should be run out of the facilities department, just like plumbing or electrical.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826206</id>
	<title>Too abstract for me</title>
	<author>KharmaWidow</author>
	<datestamp>1263903360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading these quotes I have really no idea what this guy is getting at (specifically) - and I have done basic IT as well as continue to work with IT directly...</p><p>Regarding "' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis. After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.'"</p><p>This sound like he is simply  trying to keep IT jobs rather do what's best for the company. IT architecture and tasks should be transparent - and it should run smoothly.  Outsourced IT is a pooling of IT resources and collaboration with peers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Whether its software based like Spiceworks or independent firms. In house IT know only one system. And one solution.</p><p>IT is losing its mystique and many tasks can be completed by node users as the use of networks etc become more familiar and common place. Keeping fulltime staff to  monitor and do occasional maintenance is not cost effective.  Cost effectiveness applies to everyone - including the janitors (which is why they are now outsourced).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading these quotes I have really no idea what this guy is getting at ( specifically ) - and I have done basic IT as well as continue to work with IT directly...Regarding " ' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT , according to Lewis .
After all , the standard 'run IT as a business ' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry , 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers .
' " This sound like he is simply trying to keep IT jobs rather do what 's best for the company .
IT architecture and tasks should be transparent - and it should run smoothly .
Outsourced IT is a pooling of IT resources and collaboration with peers .
...Whether its software based like Spiceworks or independent firms .
In house IT know only one system .
And one solution.IT is losing its mystique and many tasks can be completed by node users as the use of networks etc become more familiar and common place .
Keeping fulltime staff to monitor and do occasional maintenance is not cost effective .
Cost effectiveness applies to everyone - including the janitors ( which is why they are now outsourced ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading these quotes I have really no idea what this guy is getting at (specifically) - and I have done basic IT as well as continue to work with IT directly...Regarding "' To do otherwise is a sure sign of numbered days for IT, according to Lewis.
After all, the standard 'run IT as a business' model had its origins in the IT outsourcing industry, 'which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers.
'"This sound like he is simply  trying to keep IT jobs rather do what's best for the company.
IT architecture and tasks should be transparent - and it should run smoothly.
Outsourced IT is a pooling of IT resources and collaboration with peers.
...Whether its software based like Spiceworks or independent firms.
In house IT know only one system.
And one solution.IT is losing its mystique and many tasks can be completed by node users as the use of networks etc become more familiar and common place.
Keeping fulltime staff to  monitor and do occasional maintenance is not cost effective.
Cost effectiveness applies to everyone - including the janitors (which is why they are now outsourced).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825280</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd liken it more to another professional area of the company. Take HR or Accounts for example, neither of those is an 'internal business unit' as they cannot be outsourced so readily - ok, you can outsource your accounts, but it'll just cost you more, and you still end up retaining your account managers and payments clerks. HR, no-one thinks twice about them being a business service that's integral to the business rather than stuff you can buy from the lowest bidder. Like the toilet paper vendor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd liken it more to another professional area of the company .
Take HR or Accounts for example , neither of those is an 'internal business unit ' as they can not be outsourced so readily - ok , you can outsource your accounts , but it 'll just cost you more , and you still end up retaining your account managers and payments clerks .
HR , no-one thinks twice about them being a business service that 's integral to the business rather than stuff you can buy from the lowest bidder .
Like the toilet paper vendor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd liken it more to another professional area of the company.
Take HR or Accounts for example, neither of those is an 'internal business unit' as they cannot be outsourced so readily - ok, you can outsource your accounts, but it'll just cost you more, and you still end up retaining your account managers and payments clerks.
HR, no-one thinks twice about them being a business service that's integral to the business rather than stuff you can buy from the lowest bidder.
Like the toilet paper vendor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827428</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, this will never work....</title>
	<author>flanders123</author>
	<datestamp>1263912660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA doesn't know anything about tuning an Oracle database. "But you're IT!"</p></div><p>
This expectation to "To know and fix everything that plugs in, at zero cost" is prevalent and morally crushing.
<br> <br>
Offtopic, but I can one up you:  I (web developer) was once asked by a huffy finance higher-up where the light bulbs were....apparently a couple were out in a conference room right before a big meeting.  I would have helped if I knew, but when I politely said "I don't know", I got the "But you're IT!".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA does n't know anything about tuning an Oracle database .
" But you 're IT !
" This expectation to " To know and fix everything that plugs in , at zero cost " is prevalent and morally crushing .
Offtopic , but I can one up you : I ( web developer ) was once asked by a huffy finance higher-up where the light bulbs were....apparently a couple were out in a conference room right before a big meeting .
I would have helped if I knew , but when I politely said " I do n't know " , I got the " But you 're IT !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen management boggled by the fact that a Windows SA doesn't know anything about tuning an Oracle database.
"But you're IT!
"
This expectation to "To know and fix everything that plugs in, at zero cost" is prevalent and morally crushing.
Offtopic, but I can one up you:  I (web developer) was once asked by a huffy finance higher-up where the light bulbs were....apparently a couple were out in a conference room right before a big meeting.
I would have helped if I knew, but when I politely said "I don't know", I got the "But you're IT!
".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30836310</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264020000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could certainly be used that way, if you adopt the "Nobody is your customer." mindset without looking at the rest of the article.  I read this as an argument for de-centralization of IT; rather than having an insular cabal of IT guys in some back room somewhere, you have one or two in every department of the company, mingling with the other employees.  That way the IT people can see first hand what users are actually DOING, and look for ways to make improvements, rather than taking unrealistic orders from people who have no clue what they are taking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could certainly be used that way , if you adopt the " Nobody is your customer .
" mindset without looking at the rest of the article .
I read this as an argument for de-centralization of IT ; rather than having an insular cabal of IT guys in some back room somewhere , you have one or two in every department of the company , mingling with the other employees .
That way the IT people can see first hand what users are actually DOING , and look for ways to make improvements , rather than taking unrealistic orders from people who have no clue what they are taking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could certainly be used that way, if you adopt the "Nobody is your customer.
" mindset without looking at the rest of the article.
I read this as an argument for de-centralization of IT; rather than having an insular cabal of IT guys in some back room somewhere, you have one or two in every department of the company, mingling with the other employees.
That way the IT people can see first hand what users are actually DOING, and look for ways to make improvements, rather than taking unrealistic orders from people who have no clue what they are taking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826556</id>
	<title>meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263905520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My last job was an IT company trying to be a business. They hired me, then realised that they had no title for me, and that they didn't need me, so they sacked me. Everyone in the company, except the management, are on minimum wages. Now I work for my family's business as an office clerk and earn AUD$10k more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My last job was an IT company trying to be a business .
They hired me , then realised that they had no title for me , and that they did n't need me , so they sacked me .
Everyone in the company , except the management , are on minimum wages .
Now I work for my family 's business as an office clerk and earn AUD $ 10k more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My last job was an IT company trying to be a business.
They hired me, then realised that they had no title for me, and that they didn't need me, so they sacked me.
Everyone in the company, except the management, are on minimum wages.
Now I work for my family's business as an office clerk and earn AUD$10k more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824932</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YOU are spot on, my friend-- this article is clearly written by the same curmudgeonly stereotype of an IT manager that we have all experienced at some point in our professional lives.</p><p>Coming from someone that works on the sales side, IT customer service has only gotten progressively worse.  IT managers are aware of the power they wield and they clutch to it like a 2 year old clutches the last shovel in the sandbox.</p><p>What I would like is a revolution in IT, whereas the needs of the end users are kept front of mind as well as security and efficiency concerns.  If someone asks me to look up something for them, or do a quick project that takes less than ten minutes, I will usually stop what I'm doing or get it done relatively quickly for them if it will help them to finish something they need in a snap.  Dealing with IT departments, it's ticketing systems and red tape just to get someone on the other end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU are spot on , my friend-- this article is clearly written by the same curmudgeonly stereotype of an IT manager that we have all experienced at some point in our professional lives.Coming from someone that works on the sales side , IT customer service has only gotten progressively worse .
IT managers are aware of the power they wield and they clutch to it like a 2 year old clutches the last shovel in the sandbox.What I would like is a revolution in IT , whereas the needs of the end users are kept front of mind as well as security and efficiency concerns .
If someone asks me to look up something for them , or do a quick project that takes less than ten minutes , I will usually stop what I 'm doing or get it done relatively quickly for them if it will help them to finish something they need in a snap .
Dealing with IT departments , it 's ticketing systems and red tape just to get someone on the other end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YOU are spot on, my friend-- this article is clearly written by the same curmudgeonly stereotype of an IT manager that we have all experienced at some point in our professional lives.Coming from someone that works on the sales side, IT customer service has only gotten progressively worse.
IT managers are aware of the power they wield and they clutch to it like a 2 year old clutches the last shovel in the sandbox.What I would like is a revolution in IT, whereas the needs of the end users are kept front of mind as well as security and efficiency concerns.
If someone asks me to look up something for them, or do a quick project that takes less than ten minutes, I will usually stop what I'm doing or get it done relatively quickly for them if it will help them to finish something they need in a snap.
Dealing with IT departments, it's ticketing systems and red tape just to get someone on the other end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827242</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1263910920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
What do you mean?  Every department is under accounting, in a typical Enterprise, where accounting controls every department's budget.</p><p>If accounting decides to allocate $0 to IT, you get fired, <b>and</b> accounting has the benefit of not having to be the one to give you the bad news...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
Every department is under accounting , in a typical Enterprise , where accounting controls every department 's budget.If accounting decides to allocate $ 0 to IT , you get fired , and accounting has the benefit of not having to be the one to give you the bad news.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What do you mean?
Every department is under accounting, in a typical Enterprise, where accounting controls every department's budget.If accounting decides to allocate $0 to IT, you get fired, and accounting has the benefit of not having to be the one to give you the bad news...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825150</id>
	<title>Some possible good in chargebacks</title>
	<author>jpmacl</author>
	<datestamp>1263898560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love discussions like this - it amazes me how corporate IT can think of themselves like vendors, when they typically have minimal skills in that regard.

I wrote about chargebacks a few years ago - the good and the bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://bit.ly/6YeInd" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/6YeInd</a> [bit.ly]
See also<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <a href="http://bit.ly/EwsC" title="bit.ly" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/EwsC</a> [bit.ly]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... lots of different ways to think about the business / IT relationship</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love discussions like this - it amazes me how corporate IT can think of themselves like vendors , when they typically have minimal skills in that regard .
I wrote about chargebacks a few years ago - the good and the bad ... http : //bit.ly/6YeInd [ bit.ly ] See also ... http : //bit.ly/EwsC [ bit.ly ] ... lots of different ways to think about the business / IT relationship</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love discussions like this - it amazes me how corporate IT can think of themselves like vendors, when they typically have minimal skills in that regard.
I wrote about chargebacks a few years ago - the good and the bad ... http://bit.ly/6YeInd [bit.ly]
See also ... http://bit.ly/EwsC [bit.ly] ... lots of different ways to think about the business / IT relationship</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841210</id>
	<title>Re:Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>ISSurvivor</author>
	<datestamp>1263999480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the author of the article, I'm in a good position to respond.

For those who didn't read the entire article, this was a quote from Adam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption."

His point was that IT works better when it recommends superior ways to address the underlying situation, rather than dealing with requests as work orders from customers to which it must respond.

It's simply an example of the difference between "You're my customer and my job is to keep you satisfied" and "We're in this together and there's a better way for the two of us to help the company's customers than the one you envisioned."

- Bob Lewis</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the author of the article , I 'm in a good position to respond .
For those who did n't read the entire article , this was a quote from Adam Hartung , author of " Create Marketplace Disruption .
" His point was that IT works better when it recommends superior ways to address the underlying situation , rather than dealing with requests as work orders from customers to which it must respond .
It 's simply an example of the difference between " You 're my customer and my job is to keep you satisfied " and " We 're in this together and there 's a better way for the two of us to help the company 's customers than the one you envisioned .
" - Bob Lewis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the author of the article, I'm in a good position to respond.
For those who didn't read the entire article, this was a quote from Adam Hartung, author of "Create Marketplace Disruption.
"

His point was that IT works better when it recommends superior ways to address the underlying situation, rather than dealing with requests as work orders from customers to which it must respond.
It's simply an example of the difference between "You're my customer and my job is to keep you satisfied" and "We're in this together and there's a better way for the two of us to help the company's customers than the one you envisioned.
"

- Bob Lewis
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828598</id>
	<title>Nailed it</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1263924420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one problem - companies are drunk with "cheap" IT, and aren't easily going to be dragged back to the true costs without a concept of how much money TRULY integrated IT can save them.</p><p>It's a long climb back from where they're at today and they haven't exactly been hiring "entrepreneurial"-minded individuals and personalities necessary to kick-start this... what's essentially an internal "start-up" that will have to integrate themselves back into the company like the Borg, while proving they can make the company more efficient and more profitable, isn't going to be easy at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one problem - companies are drunk with " cheap " IT , and are n't easily going to be dragged back to the true costs without a concept of how much money TRULY integrated IT can save them.It 's a long climb back from where they 're at today and they have n't exactly been hiring " entrepreneurial " -minded individuals and personalities necessary to kick-start this... what 's essentially an internal " start-up " that will have to integrate themselves back into the company like the Borg , while proving they can make the company more efficient and more profitable , is n't going to be easy at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one problem - companies are drunk with "cheap" IT, and aren't easily going to be dragged back to the true costs without a concept of how much money TRULY integrated IT can save them.It's a long climb back from where they're at today and they haven't exactly been hiring "entrepreneurial"-minded individuals and personalities necessary to kick-start this... what's essentially an internal "start-up" that will have to integrate themselves back into the company like the Borg, while proving they can make the company more efficient and more profitable, isn't going to be easy at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828348</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263921840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is we employ people who can not critically think to solve a company's problem that affects all. When hiring people we do not measure the candidate both vertically and horizontally- depth of It plus understanding of all the users both employee and customers. People get promoted are C average morons but "A" butterification. Look at what is going now. We have exported our technology, manufacturing, IT development etc., and we are left with useless consumes who have no money to buy anything. People who use to BS around are now jobless and are burden to the USA. Finance and accounting guys who got a 'C' in IT now control the areas that they are not qualified to control. However, arrogant IT guys, who never learned that ROI and happiness enhancement is not just coding, rather skills that they need to develop. But is there any one who cares for US industries and business?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is we employ people who can not critically think to solve a company 's problem that affects all .
When hiring people we do not measure the candidate both vertically and horizontally- depth of It plus understanding of all the users both employee and customers .
People get promoted are C average morons but " A " butterification .
Look at what is going now .
We have exported our technology , manufacturing , IT development etc. , and we are left with useless consumes who have no money to buy anything .
People who use to BS around are now jobless and are burden to the USA .
Finance and accounting guys who got a 'C ' in IT now control the areas that they are not qualified to control .
However , arrogant IT guys , who never learned that ROI and happiness enhancement is not just coding , rather skills that they need to develop .
But is there any one who cares for US industries and business ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is we employ people who can not critically think to solve a company's problem that affects all.
When hiring people we do not measure the candidate both vertically and horizontally- depth of It plus understanding of all the users both employee and customers.
People get promoted are C average morons but "A" butterification.
Look at what is going now.
We have exported our technology, manufacturing, IT development etc., and we are left with useless consumes who have no money to buy anything.
People who use to BS around are now jobless and are burden to the USA.
Finance and accounting guys who got a 'C' in IT now control the areas that they are not qualified to control.
However, arrogant IT guys, who never learned that ROI and happiness enhancement is not just coding, rather skills that they need to develop.
But is there any one who cares for US industries and business?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825324</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>zlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1263899220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When a user asks to fix a problem, don't just fix it, perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.</p></div><p>Unfortunately some users are afraid of changes, and see the IT department as a threat - constantly messing with the process that works just fine. If you install cutePDF and it doesn't work, the IT department will get blame for wasting other people's time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a user asks to fix a problem , do n't just fix it , perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.Unfortunately some users are afraid of changes , and see the IT department as a threat - constantly messing with the process that works just fine .
If you install cutePDF and it does n't work , the IT department will get blame for wasting other people 's time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a user asks to fix a problem, don't just fix it, perhaps there is a better way of doing what they want.Unfortunately some users are afraid of changes, and see the IT department as a threat - constantly messing with the process that works just fine.
If you install cutePDF and it doesn't work, the IT department will get blame for wasting other people's time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825968</id>
	<title>WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical self absorbed IT drivel from social misfits. Here is news for all you nerds.. you are there to support a business. YOU and EVERYTHING you do should be as transparent as possible.. your entire existence serves only to make sure that whatever product the company uses is supported as efficiently and quickly as possible.. I.T. is NOT a self serving entity.. and does not exist for the benefit of itself. Us IT people do not know anythng about making pizzas, or electricity or microwave ovens. What we do is provide the tools for our parent companies based upon THEIR needs to produce that product that gets your paycheck signed. Yes we consult.. yes we recommend.. but to imply that YOU should become a core part of the business model... self indulgent crap from people who have no clue. I know that most of you hate that no one outside the computer worlds listens or pays attention to you, thats the price you pay for being nerds. You get a paycheck for being technical gurus NOT product engineers.. and to imply that being in IT somehow entitles you to that is asinine. UGH what a stupid article. People with this mentality are the WORST IT support people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical self absorbed IT drivel from social misfits .
Here is news for all you nerds.. you are there to support a business .
YOU and EVERYTHING you do should be as transparent as possible.. your entire existence serves only to make sure that whatever product the company uses is supported as efficiently and quickly as possible.. I.T. is NOT a self serving entity.. and does not exist for the benefit of itself .
Us IT people do not know anythng about making pizzas , or electricity or microwave ovens .
What we do is provide the tools for our parent companies based upon THEIR needs to produce that product that gets your paycheck signed .
Yes we consult.. yes we recommend.. but to imply that YOU should become a core part of the business model... self indulgent crap from people who have no clue .
I know that most of you hate that no one outside the computer worlds listens or pays attention to you , thats the price you pay for being nerds .
You get a paycheck for being technical gurus NOT product engineers.. and to imply that being in IT somehow entitles you to that is asinine .
UGH what a stupid article .
People with this mentality are the WORST IT support people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical self absorbed IT drivel from social misfits.
Here is news for all you nerds.. you are there to support a business.
YOU and EVERYTHING you do should be as transparent as possible.. your entire existence serves only to make sure that whatever product the company uses is supported as efficiently and quickly as possible.. I.T. is NOT a self serving entity.. and does not exist for the benefit of itself.
Us IT people do not know anythng about making pizzas, or electricity or microwave ovens.
What we do is provide the tools for our parent companies based upon THEIR needs to produce that product that gets your paycheck signed.
Yes we consult.. yes we recommend.. but to imply that YOU should become a core part of the business model... self indulgent crap from people who have no clue.
I know that most of you hate that no one outside the computer worlds listens or pays attention to you, thats the price you pay for being nerds.
You get a paycheck for being technical gurus NOT product engineers.. and to imply that being in IT somehow entitles you to that is asinine.
UGH what a stupid article.
People with this mentality are the WORST IT support people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568</id>
	<title>He is correct</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1263895920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He actually hit the nail to head with this. This is <i>the thing</i> most people working with IT or geeky professions miss, and why they think everything free and such is so great movement. Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things. <i>Nothing</i> in the world does.</p><p>This all can be really put into one line: People don't care what you do. People care about results of <i>what you can enable them to do</i>. If you provide that, great! If you dont and jab about "better ways" to do things while costing time and money, then.. sorry, but bye bye.</p><p>As a more slashdot friendlier terms, do you really care <i>how</i> a pizza place makes your pizza? No. You only care about how good it tastes when you eat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He actually hit the nail to head with this .
This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss , and why they think everything free and such is so great movement .
Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things .
Nothing in the world does.This all can be really put into one line : People do n't care what you do .
People care about results of what you can enable them to do .
If you provide that , great !
If you dont and jab about " better ways " to do things while costing time and money , then.. sorry , but bye bye.As a more slashdot friendlier terms , do you really care how a pizza place makes your pizza ?
No. You only care about how good it tastes when you eat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He actually hit the nail to head with this.
This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss, and why they think everything free and such is so great movement.
Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things.
Nothing in the world does.This all can be really put into one line: People don't care what you do.
People care about results of what you can enable them to do.
If you provide that, great!
If you dont and jab about "better ways" to do things while costing time and money, then.. sorry, but bye bye.As a more slashdot friendlier terms, do you really care how a pizza place makes your pizza?
No. You only care about how good it tastes when you eat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828926</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263929160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they proceded to print a document, then scan it in, just to email it to a vendor.</p></div><p>Just to add to Xiaran: As PDFs are easy to crack to remove the restrictions, people sometimes use scanning for the sole purpose of making the reverse-engineering more difficult.</p><p>Also, one part that CutePDF gets wrong is the default save filename and pathname.  PDF995 (an irritating competitor) actually gets it right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they proceded to print a document , then scan it in , just to email it to a vendor.Just to add to Xiaran : As PDFs are easy to crack to remove the restrictions , people sometimes use scanning for the sole purpose of making the reverse-engineering more difficult.Also , one part that CutePDF gets wrong is the default save filename and pathname .
PDF995 ( an irritating competitor ) actually gets it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they proceded to print a document, then scan it in, just to email it to a vendor.Just to add to Xiaran: As PDFs are easy to crack to remove the restrictions, people sometimes use scanning for the sole purpose of making the reverse-engineering more difficult.Also, one part that CutePDF gets wrong is the default save filename and pathname.
PDF995 (an irritating competitor) actually gets it right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827580</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1263914220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group</p></div></blockquote><p>Easy: best practices helps to avoid downtime which can cost thousands or more per hour.</p><p>It is all about risk/liability aversion: does your employer skimp on liability, fire, theft, etc. insurance? If not, then why not? Same thing with IT. Sure, it, like insurance, is a cost center, but IT infrastructure is so essential in modern business it had better be high quality and have a damn good uptime. Having decent servers and workstations in place increases productivity (or efficient slashdotting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)) so instead of paying employees to wait for the disk to stop thrashing they could be paying employees to actually get some work done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded , well populated IT groupEasy : best practices helps to avoid downtime which can cost thousands or more per hour.It is all about risk/liability aversion : does your employer skimp on liability , fire , theft , etc .
insurance ? If not , then why not ?
Same thing with IT .
Sure , it , like insurance , is a cost center , but IT infrastructure is so essential in modern business it had better be high quality and have a damn good uptime .
Having decent servers and workstations in place increases productivity ( or efficient slashdotting ; ) ) so instead of paying employees to wait for the disk to stop thrashing they could be paying employees to actually get some work done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT groupEasy: best practices helps to avoid downtime which can cost thousands or more per hour.It is all about risk/liability aversion: does your employer skimp on liability, fire, theft, etc.
insurance? If not, then why not?
Same thing with IT.
Sure, it, like insurance, is a cost center, but IT infrastructure is so essential in modern business it had better be high quality and have a damn good uptime.
Having decent servers and workstations in place increases productivity (or efficient slashdotting ;)) so instead of paying employees to wait for the disk to stop thrashing they could be paying employees to actually get some work done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825472</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you missed this part in your reading:</p><p>Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?"</p><p>Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed," followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better way of getting this done."</p><p>The article is to have IT treated as a peer not as an order-taker. Anything other than that is a waste of the talents of IT. This doesn't have anything to do with egos. It's just common sense. Do you hire a doctor to mow your lawn? No you hire him and respect his expertise as a doctor. The point of the article is that by viewing IT as a peer IT can become involved where it's most valuable, at the very beginning of any projects. I surely have seen how poorly the other method works: we do whatever the customer wants to matter how stupid, how inefficient and how harmful to the company in the long run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you missed this part in your reading : Nobody in IT should ever say , " You 're my customer and my job is to make sure you 're satisfied , " or ask , " What do you want me to do ?
" Instead , they should say , " My job is to help you and the company succeed , " followed by " Show me how you do things now , " and " Let 's figure out a better way of getting this done .
" The article is to have IT treated as a peer not as an order-taker .
Anything other than that is a waste of the talents of IT .
This does n't have anything to do with egos .
It 's just common sense .
Do you hire a doctor to mow your lawn ?
No you hire him and respect his expertise as a doctor .
The point of the article is that by viewing IT as a peer IT can become involved where it 's most valuable , at the very beginning of any projects .
I surely have seen how poorly the other method works : we do whatever the customer wants to matter how stupid , how inefficient and how harmful to the company in the long run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you missed this part in your reading:Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?
"Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed," followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better way of getting this done.
"The article is to have IT treated as a peer not as an order-taker.
Anything other than that is a waste of the talents of IT.
This doesn't have anything to do with egos.
It's just common sense.
Do you hire a doctor to mow your lawn?
No you hire him and respect his expertise as a doctor.
The point of the article is that by viewing IT as a peer IT can become involved where it's most valuable, at the very beginning of any projects.
I surely have seen how poorly the other method works: we do whatever the customer wants to matter how stupid, how inefficient and how harmful to the company in the long run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827490</id>
	<title>When it comes to IT...</title>
	<author>new2\_60605</author>
	<datestamp>1263913200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Treating it like a business is a VERY bad idea. Most businesses depend on their IT/IS Infrastructure to operate and some utilize their infrastructure to operate efficiently. In both cases the IT department is who engineer's or maintains this infrastructure that every company depends on. When your business needs to grow your infrastructure will be the first thing that needs to be modified to facilitate that growth. Having an experienced and integrated IT department is the best way to ensure a successful and painless transition. That integration comes from not separating IT as a separate business but integrating the IT staff so that they have a full understanding of operations and can better serve the company. Specifically when it comes to new technologies and how they can benefit the company by increasing profit margin, efficiency, reliability or reduce downtime. Or how to manage the flow of data from customers to maximize revenue and reduce the length of sales cycles.

As far as cutting IT costs the best thing to do is to take purchasing out of the loop so that efforts on concentrated on making things WORK instead of replacing what ever is broken with a purchase of something similarly or differently flawed. Ever since out company switched over to buying from PriceHonest.com we have saved over 20\% of our normal budget for IT and now our IT people can concentrate on internal software solutions and quality engineering of IT solutions for our Internal customers. Our IT staff writes up a RFQ on PriceHonest.com we get cheap tax free bids from CDW Dell Ingram Micro the same people our purchasing agents usually call anyways to negotiate prices and rates and we purchase everything we were getting from the same vendors except we are getting it a LOT cheaper and tax free. That gives us room in our IT budget for other expenses to make our jobs easier or to add to our rainy day fund or to have enough left over to get a bump at bonus time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Treating it like a business is a VERY bad idea .
Most businesses depend on their IT/IS Infrastructure to operate and some utilize their infrastructure to operate efficiently .
In both cases the IT department is who engineer 's or maintains this infrastructure that every company depends on .
When your business needs to grow your infrastructure will be the first thing that needs to be modified to facilitate that growth .
Having an experienced and integrated IT department is the best way to ensure a successful and painless transition .
That integration comes from not separating IT as a separate business but integrating the IT staff so that they have a full understanding of operations and can better serve the company .
Specifically when it comes to new technologies and how they can benefit the company by increasing profit margin , efficiency , reliability or reduce downtime .
Or how to manage the flow of data from customers to maximize revenue and reduce the length of sales cycles .
As far as cutting IT costs the best thing to do is to take purchasing out of the loop so that efforts on concentrated on making things WORK instead of replacing what ever is broken with a purchase of something similarly or differently flawed .
Ever since out company switched over to buying from PriceHonest.com we have saved over 20 \ % of our normal budget for IT and now our IT people can concentrate on internal software solutions and quality engineering of IT solutions for our Internal customers .
Our IT staff writes up a RFQ on PriceHonest.com we get cheap tax free bids from CDW Dell Ingram Micro the same people our purchasing agents usually call anyways to negotiate prices and rates and we purchase everything we were getting from the same vendors except we are getting it a LOT cheaper and tax free .
That gives us room in our IT budget for other expenses to make our jobs easier or to add to our rainy day fund or to have enough left over to get a bump at bonus time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Treating it like a business is a VERY bad idea.
Most businesses depend on their IT/IS Infrastructure to operate and some utilize their infrastructure to operate efficiently.
In both cases the IT department is who engineer's or maintains this infrastructure that every company depends on.
When your business needs to grow your infrastructure will be the first thing that needs to be modified to facilitate that growth.
Having an experienced and integrated IT department is the best way to ensure a successful and painless transition.
That integration comes from not separating IT as a separate business but integrating the IT staff so that they have a full understanding of operations and can better serve the company.
Specifically when it comes to new technologies and how they can benefit the company by increasing profit margin, efficiency, reliability or reduce downtime.
Or how to manage the flow of data from customers to maximize revenue and reduce the length of sales cycles.
As far as cutting IT costs the best thing to do is to take purchasing out of the loop so that efforts on concentrated on making things WORK instead of replacing what ever is broken with a purchase of something similarly or differently flawed.
Ever since out company switched over to buying from PriceHonest.com we have saved over 20\% of our normal budget for IT and now our IT people can concentrate on internal software solutions and quality engineering of IT solutions for our Internal customers.
Our IT staff writes up a RFQ on PriceHonest.com we get cheap tax free bids from CDW Dell Ingram Micro the same people our purchasing agents usually call anyways to negotiate prices and rates and we purchase everything we were getting from the same vendors except we are getting it a LOT cheaper and tax free.
That gives us room in our IT budget for other expenses to make our jobs easier or to add to our rainy day fund or to have enough left over to get a bump at bonus time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841258</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>ISSurvivor</author>
	<datestamp>1263999840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A piece you're missing: There are three bottom-line benefits to business, not two. The three are increased revenue, decreased cost, and better-managed risk. IT contributes to all three of these.
<p>
The business value of most infrastructure updates is risk management, as aging technology carries with it a number of risks (the new printer won't run on the old OS; we rely on an application build on a no-longer-supported-language and won't run on the only desktops we can now buy; to provide just a few tangible examples).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A piece you 're missing : There are three bottom-line benefits to business , not two .
The three are increased revenue , decreased cost , and better-managed risk .
IT contributes to all three of these .
The business value of most infrastructure updates is risk management , as aging technology carries with it a number of risks ( the new printer wo n't run on the old OS ; we rely on an application build on a no-longer-supported-language and wo n't run on the only desktops we can now buy ; to provide just a few tangible examples ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A piece you're missing: There are three bottom-line benefits to business, not two.
The three are increased revenue, decreased cost, and better-managed risk.
IT contributes to all three of these.
The business value of most infrastructure updates is risk management, as aging technology carries with it a number of risks (the new printer won't run on the old OS; we rely on an application build on a no-longer-supported-language and won't run on the only desktops we can now buy; to provide just a few tangible examples).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1263896280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got part of the idea.  The main problem in IT is that since we don't actually make a profit off anything directly (unlike the pizza analogy), what accounting/management sees is a department that's better at making pizzas for less than last year.  As such, they figure that it would be *even better* if you could, perhaps, make a substantially similar pizza with less people and less money.
</p><p>Keep that going for a few years, and you end up with people wondering why it takes so long for their pizza to arrive, and why, when it does, that its missing some of the requested toppings and the cheese is partially dehydrated Velveeta.
</p><p>The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant.  No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got part of the idea .
The main problem in IT is that since we do n't actually make a profit off anything directly ( unlike the pizza analogy ) , what accounting/management sees is a department that 's better at making pizzas for less than last year .
As such , they figure that it would be * even better * if you could , perhaps , make a substantially similar pizza with less people and less money .
Keep that going for a few years , and you end up with people wondering why it takes so long for their pizza to arrive , and why , when it does , that its missing some of the requested toppings and the cheese is partially dehydrated Velveeta .
The perennial problem of IT : It 's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts , from the POV of an accountant .
No direct revenue generation means " less spent is better " , with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded , well populated IT group ( as opposed to not having one or both ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got part of the idea.
The main problem in IT is that since we don't actually make a profit off anything directly (unlike the pizza analogy), what accounting/management sees is a department that's better at making pizzas for less than last year.
As such, they figure that it would be *even better* if you could, perhaps, make a substantially similar pizza with less people and less money.
Keep that going for a few years, and you end up with people wondering why it takes so long for their pizza to arrive, and why, when it does, that its missing some of the requested toppings and the cheese is partially dehydrated Velveeta.
The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant.
No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825770</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>QRDeNameland</author>
	<datestamp>1263901200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously - get overselves</p></div><p>What's an overself?  Clothes? Armor? Superego?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - get overselvesWhat 's an overself ?
Clothes ? Armor ?
Superego ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - get overselvesWhat's an overself?
Clothes? Armor?
Superego?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826890</id>
	<title>Monetising IT</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263908100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You've got part of the idea. The main problem in IT is that since we don't actually make a profit off anything directly (unlike the pizza analogy), what accounting/management sees is a department that's better at making pizzas for less than last year.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Which is why monetising IT is wrong (excepting companies that sell IT services). IT is not there to be a revenue stream but to ensure that other revenue streams are working. In this way IT is more akin to insurance, it's kept only in case the worst happens. Of course there are other business benefits to a good IT dept such as upgrades and other efficiency increases that you don't get from insurance. Accounting\PHB does not complain about the cost of insurance because they will rely on it when things go pear shaped, this is exactly the same scenario with IT and technology going pear shaped.<br> <br>

What perplexes me is that if the PHB insists on monetising IT and charging for every moment of downtime, why cant the IT dept charge other departments for every moment of uptime? Why are charges one way only?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got part of the idea .
The main problem in IT is that since we do n't actually make a profit off anything directly ( unlike the pizza analogy ) , what accounting/management sees is a department that 's better at making pizzas for less than last year .
Which is why monetising IT is wrong ( excepting companies that sell IT services ) .
IT is not there to be a revenue stream but to ensure that other revenue streams are working .
In this way IT is more akin to insurance , it 's kept only in case the worst happens .
Of course there are other business benefits to a good IT dept such as upgrades and other efficiency increases that you do n't get from insurance .
Accounting \ PHB does not complain about the cost of insurance because they will rely on it when things go pear shaped , this is exactly the same scenario with IT and technology going pear shaped .
What perplexes me is that if the PHB insists on monetising IT and charging for every moment of downtime , why cant the IT dept charge other departments for every moment of uptime ?
Why are charges one way only ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got part of the idea.
The main problem in IT is that since we don't actually make a profit off anything directly (unlike the pizza analogy), what accounting/management sees is a department that's better at making pizzas for less than last year.
Which is why monetising IT is wrong (excepting companies that sell IT services).
IT is not there to be a revenue stream but to ensure that other revenue streams are working.
In this way IT is more akin to insurance, it's kept only in case the worst happens.
Of course there are other business benefits to a good IT dept such as upgrades and other efficiency increases that you don't get from insurance.
Accounting\PHB does not complain about the cost of insurance because they will rely on it when things go pear shaped, this is exactly the same scenario with IT and technology going pear shaped.
What perplexes me is that if the PHB insists on monetising IT and charging for every moment of downtime, why cant the IT dept charge other departments for every moment of uptime?
Why are charges one way only?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825026</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what's meant is something like this: when a user outlines a requirement that IT should deliver, they won't be happy because their requirement is going to be ill-concieved or defined; OTOH, if IT offers a solution without busisness input, it's an orphan nobody will use.</p><p>Instead, work collaboratively, with the users, to determine what will work for them, and deliver that. Become part of the team, not a simple outside source or 'service' deliverer. Understand the goals and let the users and IT together define the solution.</p><p>Heck, I've always worked that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what 's meant is something like this : when a user outlines a requirement that IT should deliver , they wo n't be happy because their requirement is going to be ill-concieved or defined ; OTOH , if IT offers a solution without busisness input , it 's an orphan nobody will use.Instead , work collaboratively , with the users , to determine what will work for them , and deliver that .
Become part of the team , not a simple outside source or 'service ' deliverer .
Understand the goals and let the users and IT together define the solution.Heck , I 've always worked that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what's meant is something like this: when a user outlines a requirement that IT should deliver, they won't be happy because their requirement is going to be ill-concieved or defined; OTOH, if IT offers a solution without busisness input, it's an orphan nobody will use.Instead, work collaboratively, with the users, to determine what will work for them, and deliver that.
Become part of the team, not a simple outside source or 'service' deliverer.
Understand the goals and let the users and IT together define the solution.Heck, I've always worked that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825886</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pretty much right on all accounts, but i'd expand your comment</p><p>"Not what works best, but what the techs know"</p><p>to</p><p>"Not what works best, but what the employees know"</p><p>a smart user base frees up the techs to do more interesting and creative things TAILORED to what works best for the company.</p><p>a bunch of moronic sheep, and the techs will spend all their time on the defensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pretty much right on all accounts , but i 'd expand your comment " Not what works best , but what the techs know " to " Not what works best , but what the employees know " a smart user base frees up the techs to do more interesting and creative things TAILORED to what works best for the company.a bunch of moronic sheep , and the techs will spend all their time on the defensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pretty much right on all accounts, but i'd expand your comment"Not what works best, but what the techs know"to"Not what works best, but what the employees know"a smart user base frees up the techs to do more interesting and creative things TAILORED to what works best for the company.a bunch of moronic sheep, and the techs will spend all their time on the defensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827308</id>
	<title>Developers are Prima Donnas</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1263911520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Janitors don't produce any revenue for a company, but they are necessary for the people who do.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The same applies to Accounting, Reception, lawers and most of management. I dare you to go into your bosses office and tell him how much more important you are then he is because he doesn't directly generate a revenue stream. Same with the Accountant, you'll be laughed out of the building.

But then again, who is depending on who here, by your own admission "are necessary for the people who do".</p><blockquote><div><p>IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.</p></div></blockquote><p>

And you understand as much about business as the average homeless person, the same cant be said about Infrastructure as some hobo's would understand quite a bit more then you.<br> <br>

This is the point about developers being Prima Donna's. Some developers can manage their own machines, a few could even manage a whole team's network but get beyond 5 clients and maybe one server and almost all developers are completely lost. Almost all developers have no idea about information security and integrity, server and network systems (most have trouble with simple network troubleshooting, lets not get into routing issues) and tend to rely on this "I make money and you don't" type of egotism to ignore learning other peoples job.<br> <br>

In my last job, I let developers do their own thing on their own machines but their authority ends at the cable. But I still get asked incredibly stupid questions like:<br>
Open ports 1024 to 60,000 on the firewall to all IP addresses.<br>
Allow me to send<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe files via exchange because it's easier then the FTP site we set up.<br>
And after being given a reality check they were still indignant enough to demand their own communications infrastructure. I had to drag one dev in front of the CIO before this stopped.<br> <br>

Applogies to the approximately 60\% of dev's who aren't a pain in the arse and have a connection to reality, this rant about for you.</p><blockquote><div><p>Seriously - get overselves</p></div></blockquote><p>

Overselves, like an overlord?

Perhaps you should have learned English before ranting.</p><blockquote><div><p>STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.</p></div></blockquote><p>

STOP making my job more difficult by creating security risks and throwing up roadblocks in front of what I need to do for the sake of your petty ego. You're not the only person in your organisation, the infrastructure is here for all of them not just you.</p><blockquote><div><p>MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.</p></div></blockquote><p>

MY job enables you to do YOUR job, never forget who needs who or who is easier to replace/outsource.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Janitors do n't produce any revenue for a company , but they are necessary for the people who do .
The same applies to Accounting , Reception , lawers and most of management .
I dare you to go into your bosses office and tell him how much more important you are then he is because he does n't directly generate a revenue stream .
Same with the Accountant , you 'll be laughed out of the building .
But then again , who is depending on who here , by your own admission " are necessary for the people who do " .IT people understand a developer 's job about as much as a janitor does .
And you understand as much about business as the average homeless person , the same cant be said about Infrastructure as some hobo 's would understand quite a bit more then you .
This is the point about developers being Prima Donna 's .
Some developers can manage their own machines , a few could even manage a whole team 's network but get beyond 5 clients and maybe one server and almost all developers are completely lost .
Almost all developers have no idea about information security and integrity , server and network systems ( most have trouble with simple network troubleshooting , lets not get into routing issues ) and tend to rely on this " I make money and you do n't " type of egotism to ignore learning other peoples job .
In my last job , I let developers do their own thing on their own machines but their authority ends at the cable .
But I still get asked incredibly stupid questions like : Open ports 1024 to 60,000 on the firewall to all IP addresses .
Allow me to send .exe files via exchange because it 's easier then the FTP site we set up .
And after being given a reality check they were still indignant enough to demand their own communications infrastructure .
I had to drag one dev in front of the CIO before this stopped .
Applogies to the approximately 60 \ % of dev 's who are n't a pain in the arse and have a connection to reality , this rant about for you.Seriously - get overselves Overselves , like an overlord ?
Perhaps you should have learned English before ranting.STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult .
STOP making my job more difficult by creating security risks and throwing up roadblocks in front of what I need to do for the sake of your petty ego .
You 're not the only person in your organisation , the infrastructure is here for all of them not just you.MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary .
MY job enables you to do YOUR job , never forget who needs who or who is easier to replace/outsource .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Janitors don't produce any revenue for a company, but they are necessary for the people who do.
The same applies to Accounting, Reception, lawers and most of management.
I dare you to go into your bosses office and tell him how much more important you are then he is because he doesn't directly generate a revenue stream.
Same with the Accountant, you'll be laughed out of the building.
But then again, who is depending on who here, by your own admission "are necessary for the people who do".IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.
And you understand as much about business as the average homeless person, the same cant be said about Infrastructure as some hobo's would understand quite a bit more then you.
This is the point about developers being Prima Donna's.
Some developers can manage their own machines, a few could even manage a whole team's network but get beyond 5 clients and maybe one server and almost all developers are completely lost.
Almost all developers have no idea about information security and integrity, server and network systems (most have trouble with simple network troubleshooting, lets not get into routing issues) and tend to rely on this "I make money and you don't" type of egotism to ignore learning other peoples job.
In my last job, I let developers do their own thing on their own machines but their authority ends at the cable.
But I still get asked incredibly stupid questions like:
Open ports 1024 to 60,000 on the firewall to all IP addresses.
Allow me to send .exe files via exchange because it's easier then the FTP site we set up.
And after being given a reality check they were still indignant enough to demand their own communications infrastructure.
I had to drag one dev in front of the CIO before this stopped.
Applogies to the approximately 60\% of dev's who aren't a pain in the arse and have a connection to reality, this rant about for you.Seriously - get overselves

Overselves, like an overlord?
Perhaps you should have learned English before ranting.STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.
STOP making my job more difficult by creating security risks and throwing up roadblocks in front of what I need to do for the sake of your petty ego.
You're not the only person in your organisation, the infrastructure is here for all of them not just you.MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.
MY job enables you to do YOUR job, never forget who needs who or who is easier to replace/outsource.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825710</id>
	<title>After briefly skimming TFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263900840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recalled my approach to IT from the developer PoV:</p><p>There is little point in being an IT customer
when there are so many other vendors out there.</p><p>Of course, all my experience has been at places where
it was possible to route around IT.  I must confess this isn't
necessarily a good thing.  I'll never forget a certain manager's
explanation along the lines of, "it's backed up... but please
don't delete the 'data' folder".  Yes, that's real.  It was
gigs of customer data.  No, I won't say where.
Ah crap, better post AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recalled my approach to IT from the developer PoV : There is little point in being an IT customer when there are so many other vendors out there.Of course , all my experience has been at places where it was possible to route around IT .
I must confess this is n't necessarily a good thing .
I 'll never forget a certain manager 's explanation along the lines of , " it 's backed up... but please do n't delete the 'data ' folder " .
Yes , that 's real .
It was gigs of customer data .
No , I wo n't say where .
Ah crap , better post AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recalled my approach to IT from the developer PoV:There is little point in being an IT customer
when there are so many other vendors out there.Of course, all my experience has been at places where
it was possible to route around IT.
I must confess this isn't
necessarily a good thing.
I'll never forget a certain manager's
explanation along the lines of, "it's backed up... but please
don't delete the 'data' folder".
Yes, that's real.
It was
gigs of customer data.
No, I won't say where.
Ah crap, better post AC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828676</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>omkhar</author>
	<datestamp>1263925380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves.</p></div><p>You mean like how the Sales guys get the bonuses, while the accountants get screwed? Or how the execs get to not go to jail when internal audit discovers and issue before the next external audit?</p><p>Your logic is highly flawed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves.You mean like how the Sales guys get the bonuses , while the accountants get screwed ?
Or how the execs get to not go to jail when internal audit discovers and issue before the next external audit ? Your logic is highly flawed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT does book profit but the problem is that if we make accounting more efficient with our hard work all the accountants get nice bonuses and we get to go fuck ourselves.You mean like how the Sales guys get the bonuses, while the accountants get screwed?
Or how the execs get to not go to jail when internal audit discovers and issue before the next external audit?Your logic is highly flawed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30846824</id>
	<title>LOL, Buisness the holy grail!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1264093680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought that phase was stupid. I work in Government, and in IT, and it is a phrase I would hear a lot. We should run like a business, like that was some kind of god damn holy grail or something. I would bet most of the vaunted higher ups that would spout this nonsense never worked a day in the private sector, and likely picked up the phrase at some exorbitantly expensive training conference put on by a private consultant company just ripping off the government like all the rest.</p><p>It is complete and utter BS for one, and secondly, as I used to say, there is a significant difference between government and private business which would require them to be run differently! Mostly the fact that you are funded by public money, are accountable to the general population, have political masters, and must maintain a degree of service far above and beyond that of the private sector, particularly in areas that would be totally unprofitable to any private business enterprise, yet is essential part of our system of governance.</p><p>I understand for the most part this is trying to instill efficiency, and lower costs, but it A) doesn't work, and B) doesn't make any sense.</p><p>My response these days, is look at the previous "leaders" of business, AIG, GM, etc... and all the rest, they certainly were run like a "business" and that turned out well. Who will bail out government, should the same thing happen? Its citizens, if they can, or nobody if they can't, and you don't want to even consider if they can't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought that phase was stupid .
I work in Government , and in IT , and it is a phrase I would hear a lot .
We should run like a business , like that was some kind of god damn holy grail or something .
I would bet most of the vaunted higher ups that would spout this nonsense never worked a day in the private sector , and likely picked up the phrase at some exorbitantly expensive training conference put on by a private consultant company just ripping off the government like all the rest.It is complete and utter BS for one , and secondly , as I used to say , there is a significant difference between government and private business which would require them to be run differently !
Mostly the fact that you are funded by public money , are accountable to the general population , have political masters , and must maintain a degree of service far above and beyond that of the private sector , particularly in areas that would be totally unprofitable to any private business enterprise , yet is essential part of our system of governance.I understand for the most part this is trying to instill efficiency , and lower costs , but it A ) does n't work , and B ) does n't make any sense.My response these days , is look at the previous " leaders " of business , AIG , GM , etc... and all the rest , they certainly were run like a " business " and that turned out well .
Who will bail out government , should the same thing happen ?
Its citizens , if they can , or nobody if they ca n't , and you do n't want to even consider if they ca n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought that phase was stupid.
I work in Government, and in IT, and it is a phrase I would hear a lot.
We should run like a business, like that was some kind of god damn holy grail or something.
I would bet most of the vaunted higher ups that would spout this nonsense never worked a day in the private sector, and likely picked up the phrase at some exorbitantly expensive training conference put on by a private consultant company just ripping off the government like all the rest.It is complete and utter BS for one, and secondly, as I used to say, there is a significant difference between government and private business which would require them to be run differently!
Mostly the fact that you are funded by public money, are accountable to the general population, have political masters, and must maintain a degree of service far above and beyond that of the private sector, particularly in areas that would be totally unprofitable to any private business enterprise, yet is essential part of our system of governance.I understand for the most part this is trying to instill efficiency, and lower costs, but it A) doesn't work, and B) doesn't make any sense.My response these days, is look at the previous "leaders" of business, AIG, GM, etc... and all the rest, they certainly were run like a "business" and that turned out well.
Who will bail out government, should the same thing happen?
Its citizens, if they can, or nobody if they can't, and you don't want to even consider if they can't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827298</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>JayWilmont</author>
	<datestamp>1263911340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the whole point is to eliminate the US vs THEM boundary. So when you are working on an important project, the IT department is ALSO working on it with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the whole point is to eliminate the US vs THEM boundary .
So when you are working on an important project , the IT department is ALSO working on it with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the whole point is to eliminate the US vs THEM boundary.
So when you are working on an important project, the IT department is ALSO working on it with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824896</id>
	<title>It's one way stop unnecessary requests</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As other people have said, IT is a support function for most businesses. In some cases, this can create an authority problem - the IT section is expected to do what ever the rest of the organisation requests, and also to then wear that cost. It also can mean that as the rest of organisation aren't in the "IT business" they don't know or don't allow for internal and ongoing IT originated work to be performed.</p><p>Because businesses are in th business of making money, there should always be a business case for what ever the organisation does, including the work that the IT section performs. The business case should identify how what is being requested either makes money or saves money.</p><p>The charge back model not only enforces requiring business cases, but also attributes the costs of the work back to where it both originates and where it should be providing a benefit.</p><p>The main drawback is that it can create a monopoly provider issue - if the senior management dictate that all IT work must be done by the IT section, then IT sections can be tempted to become profit centres, and therefore not be competitive. One way to handle that situation is to set corporate standards and requirements for IT itegration, and then allow sections outside IT to compete for the work.</p><p>It isn't a perfect solution, however I think one if it's fundmental benefits is enforcing the business case requirement - and having had to work on projects which don't necessarily provide the return to the organisation that they should, mainly because a business case wasn't done before the work commenced, I see real value in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As other people have said , IT is a support function for most businesses .
In some cases , this can create an authority problem - the IT section is expected to do what ever the rest of the organisation requests , and also to then wear that cost .
It also can mean that as the rest of organisation are n't in the " IT business " they do n't know or do n't allow for internal and ongoing IT originated work to be performed.Because businesses are in th business of making money , there should always be a business case for what ever the organisation does , including the work that the IT section performs .
The business case should identify how what is being requested either makes money or saves money.The charge back model not only enforces requiring business cases , but also attributes the costs of the work back to where it both originates and where it should be providing a benefit.The main drawback is that it can create a monopoly provider issue - if the senior management dictate that all IT work must be done by the IT section , then IT sections can be tempted to become profit centres , and therefore not be competitive .
One way to handle that situation is to set corporate standards and requirements for IT itegration , and then allow sections outside IT to compete for the work.It is n't a perfect solution , however I think one if it 's fundmental benefits is enforcing the business case requirement - and having had to work on projects which do n't necessarily provide the return to the organisation that they should , mainly because a business case was n't done before the work commenced , I see real value in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As other people have said, IT is a support function for most businesses.
In some cases, this can create an authority problem - the IT section is expected to do what ever the rest of the organisation requests, and also to then wear that cost.
It also can mean that as the rest of organisation aren't in the "IT business" they don't know or don't allow for internal and ongoing IT originated work to be performed.Because businesses are in th business of making money, there should always be a business case for what ever the organisation does, including the work that the IT section performs.
The business case should identify how what is being requested either makes money or saves money.The charge back model not only enforces requiring business cases, but also attributes the costs of the work back to where it both originates and where it should be providing a benefit.The main drawback is that it can create a monopoly provider issue - if the senior management dictate that all IT work must be done by the IT section, then IT sections can be tempted to become profit centres, and therefore not be competitive.
One way to handle that situation is to set corporate standards and requirements for IT itegration, and then allow sections outside IT to compete for the work.It isn't a perfect solution, however I think one if it's fundmental benefits is enforcing the business case requirement - and having had to work on projects which don't necessarily provide the return to the organisation that they should, mainly because a business case wasn't done before the work commenced, I see real value in that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825126</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>foldingstock</author>
	<datestamp>1263898440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with your comparison of Janitors and IT works is visual. If the Janitors are all laid off, it is noticeable (trash cans overflow, dust begins to settle, glass becomes smudgy, etc), whereas if the IT department is laid off, much of their work may go unnoticed immediately. People tend to ignore IT until something breaks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with your comparison of Janitors and IT works is visual .
If the Janitors are all laid off , it is noticeable ( trash cans overflow , dust begins to settle , glass becomes smudgy , etc ) , whereas if the IT department is laid off , much of their work may go unnoticed immediately .
People tend to ignore IT until something breaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with your comparison of Janitors and IT works is visual.
If the Janitors are all laid off, it is noticeable (trash cans overflow, dust begins to settle, glass becomes smudgy, etc), whereas if the IT department is laid off, much of their work may go unnoticed immediately.
People tend to ignore IT until something breaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826084</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, douchebag!</p><p>Yes, you.  The douche.  "aquatone82".  Yup, you.  C'mere.</p><p>Let me explain something to you.  While you are obviously laboring under the mistaken impression that you are God's gift to the bit, and that the reason everybody else exists in the company is to wipe and kiss your ass when it needs wiping and kissing, um, that kind of isn't true.  In fact, it's false.  Totally false.  Utter bullshit.  Und so weiter.</p><p>See, the thing is this - you are a fucking code monkey.  Yup, that's right.  There is no such thing as a "developer" that is *not* a code monkey.  (It's like "jumbo shrimp" - there is no such thing as a shrimp that is actually jumbo.)  You are a code monkey because you "pursue your art" - i.e. commit your hatchet-job travesties of computer science - inside a tunnel constructed by others.  Who constructs that tunnel?  Yup, you got it - IT.  (In the sense you are laming about it, that translates as "sysadmin/netadmin".)</p><p>Now, you are presumably also laboring under the misapprehension that you have some understanding of the requirements of this task.  Well, you don't.  Mapping out dependency chains, identifying "big-picture" showstoppers, integration, sanity checking, all that good shit - these all fall under the general description of "providing code monkeys the adult supervision they need to avoid fucking the entire system to death with their imbecilic flailings".  Now, you don't like adult supervision - the same way kids don't like eating broccoli, and envision worlds made out of ice-cream and Coca-Cola where every meal is dessert - but you don't get to operate without it, because (I reiterate) you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing outside your protected little bubble.  Kids, mental defectives, and developers need their hands held, or they'll hurt themselves or someone else.  This is a fact, deal with it.</p><p>Now, how do I know this?  I know this because anybody who *did* know what they were doing - i.e. had done their time as a sysadmin/netadmin before, professionally, for money - would never have let a comment as stupid as yours pass their lips.  Believe me, the sysadmin knows more about what you're doing than you think - it is only in your mind that you are so clever that no mere "computer janitor", as you so snottily refer to them, can possibly understand the ineffable mysteries of your artistry.</p><p>I'd recommend you spend some time laboring in the sulfur mines, son - a little adult responsibility might knock a little of that bad attitude out of that vacuum-flask you call a head.  Until then, I'd recommend that you avoid pissing off the IT department.  BOFHs do not take kindly to attitude of your type, and have been known to correct it with a 2x4.</p><p>Have a nice day (asshole).</p><p>"scary devil monastery forever"<br>-BOFH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , douchebag ! Yes , you .
The douche .
" aquatone82 " . Yup , you .
C'mere.Let me explain something to you .
While you are obviously laboring under the mistaken impression that you are God 's gift to the bit , and that the reason everybody else exists in the company is to wipe and kiss your ass when it needs wiping and kissing , um , that kind of is n't true .
In fact , it 's false .
Totally false .
Utter bullshit .
Und so weiter.See , the thing is this - you are a fucking code monkey .
Yup , that 's right .
There is no such thing as a " developer " that is * not * a code monkey .
( It 's like " jumbo shrimp " - there is no such thing as a shrimp that is actually jumbo .
) You are a code monkey because you " pursue your art " - i.e .
commit your hatchet-job travesties of computer science - inside a tunnel constructed by others .
Who constructs that tunnel ?
Yup , you got it - IT .
( In the sense you are laming about it , that translates as " sysadmin/netadmin " .
) Now , you are presumably also laboring under the misapprehension that you have some understanding of the requirements of this task .
Well , you do n't .
Mapping out dependency chains , identifying " big-picture " showstoppers , integration , sanity checking , all that good shit - these all fall under the general description of " providing code monkeys the adult supervision they need to avoid fucking the entire system to death with their imbecilic flailings " .
Now , you do n't like adult supervision - the same way kids do n't like eating broccoli , and envision worlds made out of ice-cream and Coca-Cola where every meal is dessert - but you do n't get to operate without it , because ( I reiterate ) you do n't have the slightest clue what you 're doing outside your protected little bubble .
Kids , mental defectives , and developers need their hands held , or they 'll hurt themselves or someone else .
This is a fact , deal with it.Now , how do I know this ?
I know this because anybody who * did * know what they were doing - i.e .
had done their time as a sysadmin/netadmin before , professionally , for money - would never have let a comment as stupid as yours pass their lips .
Believe me , the sysadmin knows more about what you 're doing than you think - it is only in your mind that you are so clever that no mere " computer janitor " , as you so snottily refer to them , can possibly understand the ineffable mysteries of your artistry.I 'd recommend you spend some time laboring in the sulfur mines , son - a little adult responsibility might knock a little of that bad attitude out of that vacuum-flask you call a head .
Until then , I 'd recommend that you avoid pissing off the IT department .
BOFHs do not take kindly to attitude of your type , and have been known to correct it with a 2x4.Have a nice day ( asshole ) .
" scary devil monastery forever " -BOFH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, douchebag!Yes, you.
The douche.
"aquatone82".  Yup, you.
C'mere.Let me explain something to you.
While you are obviously laboring under the mistaken impression that you are God's gift to the bit, and that the reason everybody else exists in the company is to wipe and kiss your ass when it needs wiping and kissing, um, that kind of isn't true.
In fact, it's false.
Totally false.
Utter bullshit.
Und so weiter.See, the thing is this - you are a fucking code monkey.
Yup, that's right.
There is no such thing as a "developer" that is *not* a code monkey.
(It's like "jumbo shrimp" - there is no such thing as a shrimp that is actually jumbo.
)  You are a code monkey because you "pursue your art" - i.e.
commit your hatchet-job travesties of computer science - inside a tunnel constructed by others.
Who constructs that tunnel?
Yup, you got it - IT.
(In the sense you are laming about it, that translates as "sysadmin/netadmin".
)Now, you are presumably also laboring under the misapprehension that you have some understanding of the requirements of this task.
Well, you don't.
Mapping out dependency chains, identifying "big-picture" showstoppers, integration, sanity checking, all that good shit - these all fall under the general description of "providing code monkeys the adult supervision they need to avoid fucking the entire system to death with their imbecilic flailings".
Now, you don't like adult supervision - the same way kids don't like eating broccoli, and envision worlds made out of ice-cream and Coca-Cola where every meal is dessert - but you don't get to operate without it, because (I reiterate) you don't have the slightest clue what you're doing outside your protected little bubble.
Kids, mental defectives, and developers need their hands held, or they'll hurt themselves or someone else.
This is a fact, deal with it.Now, how do I know this?
I know this because anybody who *did* know what they were doing - i.e.
had done their time as a sysadmin/netadmin before, professionally, for money - would never have let a comment as stupid as yours pass their lips.
Believe me, the sysadmin knows more about what you're doing than you think - it is only in your mind that you are so clever that no mere "computer janitor", as you so snottily refer to them, can possibly understand the ineffable mysteries of your artistry.I'd recommend you spend some time laboring in the sulfur mines, son - a little adult responsibility might knock a little of that bad attitude out of that vacuum-flask you call a head.
Until then, I'd recommend that you avoid pissing off the IT department.
BOFHs do not take kindly to attitude of your type, and have been known to correct it with a 2x4.Have a nice day (asshole).
"scary devil monastery forever"-BOFH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825112</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant. No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).</i> </p><p>And yet, the accountants are so short-sighted they can't see that, absent IT, they'd be twiddling their puds doing bookkeeping for the local hardware store.</p><p>It's like being raised and supported by your folks, then telling them they have to carry their own weight by paying rent for living n your house.</p><p>They're nothing but a bunch of self-absorbed, ungrateful bastards.</p><p>Hah! -- captcha = scorns</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The perennial problem of IT : It 's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts , from the POV of an accountant .
No direct revenue generation means " less spent is better " , with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded , well populated IT group ( as opposed to not having one or both ) .
And yet , the accountants are so short-sighted they ca n't see that , absent IT , they 'd be twiddling their puds doing bookkeeping for the local hardware store.It 's like being raised and supported by your folks , then telling them they have to carry their own weight by paying rent for living n your house.They 're nothing but a bunch of self-absorbed , ungrateful bastards.Hah !
-- captcha = scorns</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant.
No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).
And yet, the accountants are so short-sighted they can't see that, absent IT, they'd be twiddling their puds doing bookkeeping for the local hardware store.It's like being raised and supported by your folks, then telling them they have to carry their own weight by paying rent for living n your house.They're nothing but a bunch of self-absorbed, ungrateful bastards.Hah!
-- captcha = scorns</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833642</id>
	<title>Re:Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264009440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more. That line really threw me. "Don't build web apps when you can use the cloud!" is a nonsense statement. It may be VERY valid to include mobile devices in your application planning, but if you're building apps, you're building apps.</p><p>I also don't understand the article's repeated insistence that what IT does is "deliver software." At least in our company, delivering software is less than 5\% of what we do. There's infrastructure, servers, application support (commercial mostly, not custom), database support, helpdesk, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more .
That line really threw me .
" Do n't build web apps when you can use the cloud !
" is a nonsense statement .
It may be VERY valid to include mobile devices in your application planning , but if you 're building apps , you 're building apps.I also do n't understand the article 's repeated insistence that what IT does is " deliver software .
" At least in our company , delivering software is less than 5 \ % of what we do .
There 's infrastructure , servers , application support ( commercial mostly , not custom ) , database support , helpdesk , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.
That line really threw me.
"Don't build web apps when you can use the cloud!
" is a nonsense statement.
It may be VERY valid to include mobile devices in your application planning, but if you're building apps, you're building apps.I also don't understand the article's repeated insistence that what IT does is "deliver software.
" At least in our company, delivering software is less than 5\% of what we do.
There's infrastructure, servers, application support (commercial mostly, not custom), database support, helpdesk, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825366</id>
	<title>Better IT be treated like business...</title>
	<author>pyrr</author>
	<datestamp>1263899400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...than behave as if it's a self-licking ice cream cone. IT exists for the productivity of the other employees. All too often, IT folks lose sight of that and start feeling that they can call the shots and that the end users' needs aren't as important as IT objectives and IT vision.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...than behave as if it 's a self-licking ice cream cone .
IT exists for the productivity of the other employees .
All too often , IT folks lose sight of that and start feeling that they can call the shots and that the end users ' needs are n't as important as IT objectives and IT vision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...than behave as if it's a self-licking ice cream cone.
IT exists for the productivity of the other employees.
All too often, IT folks lose sight of that and start feeling that they can call the shots and that the end users' needs aren't as important as IT objectives and IT vision.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824996</id>
	<title>Good point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He actually hit the nail to head with this. This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss, and why they think everything free and such is so great movement. Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things. Nothing in the world does.</p><p>This all can be really put into one line: People don't care what you do. People care about results of what you can enable them to do. If you provide that, great! If you dont and jab about "better ways" to do things while costing time and money, then.. sorry, but bye bye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He actually hit the nail to head with this .
This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss , and why they think everything free and such is so great movement .
Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things .
Nothing in the world does.This all can be really put into one line : People do n't care what you do .
People care about results of what you can enable them to do .
If you provide that , great !
If you dont and jab about " better ways " to do things while costing time and money , then.. sorry , but bye bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He actually hit the nail to head with this.
This is the thing most people working with IT or geeky professions miss, and why they think everything free and such is so great movement.
Business DOES NOT work on mere technical things.
Nothing in the world does.This all can be really put into one line: People don't care what you do.
People care about results of what you can enable them to do.
If you provide that, great!
If you dont and jab about "better ways" to do things while costing time and money, then.. sorry, but bye bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825136</id>
	<title>Running a X as a business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pretty much means report a bunch of lies to accounting so they can produce reports that fester on managements desk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pretty much means report a bunch of lies to accounting so they can produce reports that fester on managements desk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pretty much means report a bunch of lies to accounting so they can produce reports that fester on managements desk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824664</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1263896400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trying to expect people to understand IT (when they're not) is like trying to get a traditional business to understand customer service.</p><p>Both get shafted on being given the funds understanding they need, and welp. wouldn't you know everyone's pissed.</p><p>The answer is: do a shitty job in IT and/or customer service, and your company's going to have a tough time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trying to expect people to understand IT ( when they 're not ) is like trying to get a traditional business to understand customer service.Both get shafted on being given the funds understanding they need , and welp .
would n't you know everyone 's pissed.The answer is : do a shitty job in IT and/or customer service , and your company 's going to have a tough time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trying to expect people to understand IT (when they're not) is like trying to get a traditional business to understand customer service.Both get shafted on being given the funds understanding they need, and welp.
wouldn't you know everyone's pissed.The answer is: do a shitty job in IT and/or customer service, and your company's going to have a tough time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825534</id>
	<title>Operational vs. Strategic</title>
	<author>ppanon</author>
	<datestamp>1263900120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would think businesses would understand the difference by now. However with most public companies focused on the next quarterly or yearly report, the operational factors seem to overwhelm the strategic, until something like a major recession slaps them upside the head. "IT as a business" and best practice frameworks for IT work well for operational tasks. Software development, among other functions of IT, are strategic tasks and those tasks will function best when well integrated with the needs of the business instead of the needs of business units. So manage operational functions like a separate business, but integrate strategic functions more closely with the business and use the data you gather at the operational level to inform those strategic decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would think businesses would understand the difference by now .
However with most public companies focused on the next quarterly or yearly report , the operational factors seem to overwhelm the strategic , until something like a major recession slaps them upside the head .
" IT as a business " and best practice frameworks for IT work well for operational tasks .
Software development , among other functions of IT , are strategic tasks and those tasks will function best when well integrated with the needs of the business instead of the needs of business units .
So manage operational functions like a separate business , but integrate strategic functions more closely with the business and use the data you gather at the operational level to inform those strategic decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would think businesses would understand the difference by now.
However with most public companies focused on the next quarterly or yearly report, the operational factors seem to overwhelm the strategic, until something like a major recession slaps them upside the head.
"IT as a business" and best practice frameworks for IT work well for operational tasks.
Software development, among other functions of IT, are strategic tasks and those tasks will function best when well integrated with the needs of the business instead of the needs of business units.
So manage operational functions like a separate business, but integrate strategic functions more closely with the business and use the data you gather at the operational level to inform those strategic decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828614</id>
	<title>Re:He is dead wrong</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263924540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby?</p></div><p>Well it's abandoning the concept of IT as a <i>separate</i> business.  I've seen it in several companies to various degrees, where the management treats IT as a totally separate company that provides a well-defined service, even when it's an internal IT staff.  It's like, "these are just the people we hire to buy our computers and install them," and that's it.
</p><p>Of course, that's fine if your company could not be made more efficient through appropriate use of computers, or else if the people in your company are computer savvy enough to always make best use of your computers.  Otherwise, it might be beneficial to have your IT staff more tightly integrated with your operations.  In this way of looking at things, your IT department doesn't cease to be <i>a business</i>.  It's just that the IT department truly becomes part of <i>your business</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby ? Well it 's abandoning the concept of IT as a separate business .
I 've seen it in several companies to various degrees , where the management treats IT as a totally separate company that provides a well-defined service , even when it 's an internal IT staff .
It 's like , " these are just the people we hire to buy our computers and install them , " and that 's it .
Of course , that 's fine if your company could not be made more efficient through appropriate use of computers , or else if the people in your company are computer savvy enough to always make best use of your computers .
Otherwise , it might be beneficial to have your IT staff more tightly integrated with your operations .
In this way of looking at things , your IT department does n't cease to be a business .
It 's just that the IT department truly becomes part of your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby?Well it's abandoning the concept of IT as a separate business.
I've seen it in several companies to various degrees, where the management treats IT as a totally separate company that provides a well-defined service, even when it's an internal IT staff.
It's like, "these are just the people we hire to buy our computers and install them," and that's it.
Of course, that's fine if your company could not be made more efficient through appropriate use of computers, or else if the people in your company are computer savvy enough to always make best use of your computers.
Otherwise, it might be beneficial to have your IT staff more tightly integrated with your operations.
In this way of looking at things, your IT department doesn't cease to be a business.
It's just that the IT department truly becomes part of your business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824900</id>
	<title>Allow me to allay your fears</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1263897600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly).</p></div><p>What it actually sounds like is providing <i>more</i> responsive "service" that amounts to commiserating over your unfulfilled IT related goals.  Your project is important.  IT wants to walk a mile in your shoes and really <i>feel the pain</i> of watching it flounder.</p><p>This way, failure is shared and everyone understands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already ( and most IT depts I 've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly ) .What it actually sounds like is providing more responsive " service " that amounts to commiserating over your unfulfilled IT related goals .
Your project is important .
IT wants to walk a mile in your shoes and really feel the pain of watching it flounder.This way , failure is shared and everyone understands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly).What it actually sounds like is providing more responsive "service" that amounts to commiserating over your unfulfilled IT related goals.
Your project is important.
IT wants to walk a mile in your shoes and really feel the pain of watching it flounder.This way, failure is shared and everyone understands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826670</id>
	<title>Wrong Model...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1263906360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like the idea of IT as a fiefdom. <br> <br>
Squire!<br>
Yes My Lord?<br>
Call the Wizards of IT, and tell them we want louder keyboards.<br>
At once my liege! The Wizards will want a description the problem with the current keyboards...<br>
Of course. Tell them I can not hear the serfs toiling in their cubicles!<br> <br>
Man, is it too early to start drinking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the idea of IT as a fiefdom .
Squire ! Yes My Lord ?
Call the Wizards of IT , and tell them we want louder keyboards .
At once my liege !
The Wizards will want a description the problem with the current keyboards.. . Of course .
Tell them I can not hear the serfs toiling in their cubicles !
Man , is it too early to start drinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the idea of IT as a fiefdom.
Squire!
Yes My Lord?
Call the Wizards of IT, and tell them we want louder keyboards.
At once my liege!
The Wizards will want a description the problem with the current keyboards...
Of course.
Tell them I can not hear the serfs toiling in their cubicles!
Man, is it too early to start drinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824824</id>
	<title>Selling to customers</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1263897300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the problem with most businesses, is that often the lowest paid employees handle customer service. Should IT departments focus more on good customer service, even if their "customers" are fellow employees in the company? Certainly. But this is a failing of all businesses.</p><p>Focusing on customer service may in fact entail paying more to hire better employees, and spending cash on training. How many businesses are doing this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the problem with most businesses , is that often the lowest paid employees handle customer service .
Should IT departments focus more on good customer service , even if their " customers " are fellow employees in the company ?
Certainly. But this is a failing of all businesses.Focusing on customer service may in fact entail paying more to hire better employees , and spending cash on training .
How many businesses are doing this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the problem with most businesses, is that often the lowest paid employees handle customer service.
Should IT departments focus more on good customer service, even if their "customers" are fellow employees in the company?
Certainly. But this is a failing of all businesses.Focusing on customer service may in fact entail paying more to hire better employees, and spending cash on training.
How many businesses are doing this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824938</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1263897720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last time I checked, programmers are in IT.  At least where I work.  Don't even get me started on developers (and I was one professionally for a year). Most of them couldn't tie their own shoes without forgetting to let go after they are done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , programmers are in IT .
At least where I work .
Do n't even get me started on developers ( and I was one professionally for a year ) .
Most of them could n't tie their own shoes without forgetting to let go after they are done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, programmers are in IT.
At least where I work.
Don't even get me started on developers (and I was one professionally for a year).
Most of them couldn't tie their own shoes without forgetting to let go after they are done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828714</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1263925740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In particular, being a rational economic actor (Homo economicus) is most likely a part of the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In particular , being a rational economic actor ( Homo economicus ) is most likely a part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In particular, being a rational economic actor (Homo economicus) is most likely a part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828316</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263921600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IT is a service, a service that makes your business run better. And the better that service is shaped to your business, the more adapted to how you work, the more efficiently your business operates.</p></div><p>But I think part of the point here is that IT and "your business" aren't really that separable.  Not only can your business be more efficient by shaping IT to it, but sometimes you have to shape your business based on what efficiencies can be gained through IT.
</p><p>Yes, it depends on the business.  Still, for many businesses, if you think of IT as a service that is provided to you so that you can continue doing business-as-usual, then you might be missing out on a lot of the benefits IT can provide.  Computers and the Internet can provide a lot of increases in efficiency, but in order to attain those increases you need your business people to be computer savvy and your IT people to be business savvy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IT is a service , a service that makes your business run better .
And the better that service is shaped to your business , the more adapted to how you work , the more efficiently your business operates.But I think part of the point here is that IT and " your business " are n't really that separable .
Not only can your business be more efficient by shaping IT to it , but sometimes you have to shape your business based on what efficiencies can be gained through IT .
Yes , it depends on the business .
Still , for many businesses , if you think of IT as a service that is provided to you so that you can continue doing business-as-usual , then you might be missing out on a lot of the benefits IT can provide .
Computers and the Internet can provide a lot of increases in efficiency , but in order to attain those increases you need your business people to be computer savvy and your IT people to be business savvy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT is a service, a service that makes your business run better.
And the better that service is shaped to your business, the more adapted to how you work, the more efficiently your business operates.But I think part of the point here is that IT and "your business" aren't really that separable.
Not only can your business be more efficient by shaping IT to it, but sometimes you have to shape your business based on what efficiencies can be gained through IT.
Yes, it depends on the business.
Still, for many businesses, if you think of IT as a service that is provided to you so that you can continue doing business-as-usual, then you might be missing out on a lot of the benefits IT can provide.
Computers and the Internet can provide a lot of increases in efficiency, but in order to attain those increases you need your business people to be computer savvy and your IT people to be business savvy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825316</id>
	<title>You don't understand the article.</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1263899160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even <b>LESS customer service</b> than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been <b>FAR from customer-friendly/b&gt;).</b></p></div><p>The whole point is that <b>you're thinking about it the wrong way</b>.  There should be *NO* "customer" anything.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.</p></div><p>What you *should* expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning, rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact.  They don't need to "come running" because they're already there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already ( and most IT depts I 've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly/b &gt; ) .The whole point is that you 're thinking about it the wrong way .
There should be * NO * " customer " anything.When I 'm working on an important project , and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade , I certainly do n't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.What you * should * expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning , rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact .
They do n't need to " come running " because they 're already there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole thing sounds like a cheap excuse for providing even LESS customer service than IT departments deliver already (and most IT depts I've worked with have already been FAR from customer-friendly/b&gt;).The whole point is that you're thinking about it the wrong way.
There should be *NO* "customer" anything.When I'm working on an important project, and need a critical piece of software or hardware upgrade, I certainly don't expect IT to drop everything and come running immediately.What you *should* expect is for IT to be a part of the project from the beginning, rather than just being asked to provide something after the fact.
They don't need to "come running" because they're already there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868</id>
	<title>Poor communication skills</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1263897480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.</p><p>I dig what they are trying to say, I really do.  But it's nothing new, and certainly nothing beyond what we already have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills , attributes these flaws to " IT as a business " , and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.I dig what they are trying to say , I really do .
But it 's nothing new , and certainly nothing beyond what we already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.I dig what they are trying to say, I really do.
But it's nothing new, and certainly nothing beyond what we already have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826860</id>
	<title>Re:IT-as-a-business also positions it as antagonis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263907920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Throughout my IT career, most of which has been as a professional consultant, I view everyone from the organization to the end-user as a client. This allows me to maintain the proper focus, a client-centric focus, when addressing problems and requests. Even when working as an employee over the years I maintained the same client-centric focus. To classify IT as a business or to set up IT as a business is non-sense because IT, done correctly, reduces costs of activities associated with the core function of the business. IT is a service not a business unless your business is IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Throughout my IT career , most of which has been as a professional consultant , I view everyone from the organization to the end-user as a client .
This allows me to maintain the proper focus , a client-centric focus , when addressing problems and requests .
Even when working as an employee over the years I maintained the same client-centric focus .
To classify IT as a business or to set up IT as a business is non-sense because IT , done correctly , reduces costs of activities associated with the core function of the business .
IT is a service not a business unless your business is IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Throughout my IT career, most of which has been as a professional consultant, I view everyone from the organization to the end-user as a client.
This allows me to maintain the proper focus, a client-centric focus, when addressing problems and requests.
Even when working as an employee over the years I maintained the same client-centric focus.
To classify IT as a business or to set up IT as a business is non-sense because IT, done correctly, reduces costs of activities associated with the core function of the business.
IT is a service not a business unless your business is IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824776</id>
	<title>He is dead wrong</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1263897120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is he dead wrong?  Because his definition of a business is a 'arms length relationship' between customer and provider.  His IT 'business' targets delivering the lowest possible acceptable product and uses monopoly power to set the price.  While there are definitely IT shops run like this it is a terrible model for an actual business.  You will never hear a successful non-monopoly business pushing a strategy of separation from the customer and merely adequate service.</p><p>This might be a guerrilla movement to change things and certainly IT shops run as he describes should be change, but that change should be reorientation of IT toward supporting business operations and integration of custom IT skills into business projects.  It should include education within business units about the capabilities (and costs!) of a professional IT department.  Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby?  In any case it's the first thing on the chopping block when the budget cuts come down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is he dead wrong ?
Because his definition of a business is a 'arms length relationship ' between customer and provider .
His IT 'business ' targets delivering the lowest possible acceptable product and uses monopoly power to set the price .
While there are definitely IT shops run like this it is a terrible model for an actual business .
You will never hear a successful non-monopoly business pushing a strategy of separation from the customer and merely adequate service.This might be a guerrilla movement to change things and certainly IT shops run as he describes should be change , but that change should be reorientation of IT toward supporting business operations and integration of custom IT skills into business projects .
It should include education within business units about the capabilities ( and costs !
) of a professional IT department .
Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby ?
In any case it 's the first thing on the chopping block when the budget cuts come down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is he dead wrong?
Because his definition of a business is a 'arms length relationship' between customer and provider.
His IT 'business' targets delivering the lowest possible acceptable product and uses monopoly power to set the price.
While there are definitely IT shops run like this it is a terrible model for an actual business.
You will never hear a successful non-monopoly business pushing a strategy of separation from the customer and merely adequate service.This might be a guerrilla movement to change things and certainly IT shops run as he describes should be change, but that change should be reorientation of IT toward supporting business operations and integration of custom IT skills into business projects.
It should include education within business units about the capabilities (and costs!
) of a professional IT department.
Abandoning the concept of IT being a business relegates it to what... a hobby?
In any case it's the first thing on the chopping block when the budget cuts come down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825830</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>desmondmonster</author>
	<datestamp>1263901440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant."

There is an easy way to fix this, as the article suggests:  get to know a couple of your accountants, see what kind of work they do and how they use Excel, then write a quick macro to format their data, spread it across several tabs, or email their colleagues.  This simple work makes a real impact, and they will quickly understand IT's benefits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The perennial problem of IT : It 's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts , from the POV of an accountant .
" There is an easy way to fix this , as the article suggests : get to know a couple of your accountants , see what kind of work they do and how they use Excel , then write a quick macro to format their data , spread it across several tabs , or email their colleagues .
This simple work makes a real impact , and they will quickly understand IT 's benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant.
"

There is an easy way to fix this, as the article suggests:  get to know a couple of your accountants, see what kind of work they do and how they use Excel, then write a quick macro to format their data, spread it across several tabs, or email their colleagues.
This simple work makes a real impact, and they will quickly understand IT's benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824854</id>
	<title>NO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anonymously for my protection. As a long time sysadmin and somone who provided phone based tech support for a couple years as well, I hate the whole IT a business thing.  Whenever I hear a manager say something like "we're here to serve the customer" and they mean other employees, it tells me that the manager fundamentally doesn't understand how good IT practices work.  As a sysadmin, I'm supposed to have the power to tell a co-worker that the password they are using is too weak or that they need to use this program instead of that.  Or that we can't do what you want on the server or network because its too insecure.  They shouldn't have the right to override the technical decisions of people with more experience with them.  Especially when it comes to security.</p><p>Employees are not customers, they are employees. They are paid to do their job and follow the rules.  If they can't, they should be let go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously for my protection .
As a long time sysadmin and somone who provided phone based tech support for a couple years as well , I hate the whole IT a business thing .
Whenever I hear a manager say something like " we 're here to serve the customer " and they mean other employees , it tells me that the manager fundamentally does n't understand how good IT practices work .
As a sysadmin , I 'm supposed to have the power to tell a co-worker that the password they are using is too weak or that they need to use this program instead of that .
Or that we ca n't do what you want on the server or network because its too insecure .
They should n't have the right to override the technical decisions of people with more experience with them .
Especially when it comes to security.Employees are not customers , they are employees .
They are paid to do their job and follow the rules .
If they ca n't , they should be let go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously for my protection.
As a long time sysadmin and somone who provided phone based tech support for a couple years as well, I hate the whole IT a business thing.
Whenever I hear a manager say something like "we're here to serve the customer" and they mean other employees, it tells me that the manager fundamentally doesn't understand how good IT practices work.
As a sysadmin, I'm supposed to have the power to tell a co-worker that the password they are using is too weak or that they need to use this program instead of that.
Or that we can't do what you want on the server or network because its too insecure.
They shouldn't have the right to override the technical decisions of people with more experience with them.
Especially when it comes to security.Employees are not customers, they are employees.
They are paid to do their job and follow the rules.
If they can't, they should be let go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824958</id>
	<title>Otherwise known as the...</title>
	<author>syntaxeater</author>
	<datestamp>1263897780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"You'll get it when you get it" model.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You 'll get it when you get it " model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You'll get it when you get it" model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828658</id>
	<title>Re:IT-as-a-business also positions it as antagonis</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1263925140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a software developer I greatly appreciate the small number of times I've actually seen the software used by the end user. As this can give insight into how the process is used, what further automation can be done and what simple GUI improvements can be made to make the process more efficient. If such information is filtered out by the usual user &gt; manager &gt; analyst &gt; developer chain of command, it makes my job that much harder.
</p><p>Personally I think developers should eat their own cooking more. Get them out into various parts of the business from time to time so they can see exactly what is being done. Then they will be in a better position to offer advice on how they can improve on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a software developer I greatly appreciate the small number of times I 've actually seen the software used by the end user .
As this can give insight into how the process is used , what further automation can be done and what simple GUI improvements can be made to make the process more efficient .
If such information is filtered out by the usual user &gt; manager &gt; analyst &gt; developer chain of command , it makes my job that much harder .
Personally I think developers should eat their own cooking more .
Get them out into various parts of the business from time to time so they can see exactly what is being done .
Then they will be in a better position to offer advice on how they can improve on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a software developer I greatly appreciate the small number of times I've actually seen the software used by the end user.
As this can give insight into how the process is used, what further automation can be done and what simple GUI improvements can be made to make the process more efficient.
If such information is filtered out by the usual user &gt; manager &gt; analyst &gt; developer chain of command, it makes my job that much harder.
Personally I think developers should eat their own cooking more.
Get them out into various parts of the business from time to time so they can see exactly what is being done.
Then they will be in a better position to offer advice on how they can improve on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825550</id>
	<title>Driving An Airplane</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1263900180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Running IT as a business is like driving an airplane:</p><p>It seems like a logical extension of known abilities.<br>In the situation, if you try a few driving techniques, they'll probably work out fairly well.<br>But the first time you try something that seems simple but works very differently, say try to turn left by turning the 'steering' wheel to the left, you're going to be sorry.</p><p>Making parallels between IT and business is what business people do when confronted with having to run IT based on their business experience rather than learning how to do it right. They are rationalizing using the tools they already have, and protecting their ego by trying to make the rest of the model fit them. When they try to turn left and end up pranging*, they can blame the IT department for not falling into line with the business model. They can use that excuse when interviewing for their next position and get the sympathy of all the other business people who commiserate with colleagues forced to work with the IT people.</p><p>Do your business-based IT manager a favor. Soothe his ego by telling him he drives like Mario Andretti. Then brief him on the basic differences between driving the track at Indy, and moving in 3 dimensions using pitch, yaw and roll, and how if he tries to take the first turn the way he used to, he's going to get a valuable lesson in roll, as well as in pranging. Then take him out for a few touch-and-goes and let him hold the stick for a bit on the level. Then sign him up for beginner's ground school, which would be learning to be a help desk droid. If you're stuck with him, you might just try to get him to learn to be part of the department rather than part of the problem.</p><p>And if he refuses? Fuck it, strap him in and let him solo. It won't take long. There's lots of these guys that the big kids upstairs want sent your way, for various reasons, and 'making IT work' may be the mantra but it's not always the reason.</p><p>Pranging, from prang v. (Brit.): To land an airplane nose first, usually at high speed, often under power, almost certainly by someone with no previous experience landing an airplane in that fashion. The lucky tend to learn to land in other ways after this, the smart learn to before this, the rest never get a second chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running IT as a business is like driving an airplane : It seems like a logical extension of known abilities.In the situation , if you try a few driving techniques , they 'll probably work out fairly well.But the first time you try something that seems simple but works very differently , say try to turn left by turning the 'steering ' wheel to the left , you 're going to be sorry.Making parallels between IT and business is what business people do when confronted with having to run IT based on their business experience rather than learning how to do it right .
They are rationalizing using the tools they already have , and protecting their ego by trying to make the rest of the model fit them .
When they try to turn left and end up pranging * , they can blame the IT department for not falling into line with the business model .
They can use that excuse when interviewing for their next position and get the sympathy of all the other business people who commiserate with colleagues forced to work with the IT people.Do your business-based IT manager a favor .
Soothe his ego by telling him he drives like Mario Andretti .
Then brief him on the basic differences between driving the track at Indy , and moving in 3 dimensions using pitch , yaw and roll , and how if he tries to take the first turn the way he used to , he 's going to get a valuable lesson in roll , as well as in pranging .
Then take him out for a few touch-and-goes and let him hold the stick for a bit on the level .
Then sign him up for beginner 's ground school , which would be learning to be a help desk droid .
If you 're stuck with him , you might just try to get him to learn to be part of the department rather than part of the problem.And if he refuses ?
Fuck it , strap him in and let him solo .
It wo n't take long .
There 's lots of these guys that the big kids upstairs want sent your way , for various reasons , and 'making IT work ' may be the mantra but it 's not always the reason.Pranging , from prang v .
( Brit. ) : To land an airplane nose first , usually at high speed , often under power , almost certainly by someone with no previous experience landing an airplane in that fashion .
The lucky tend to learn to land in other ways after this , the smart learn to before this , the rest never get a second chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running IT as a business is like driving an airplane:It seems like a logical extension of known abilities.In the situation, if you try a few driving techniques, they'll probably work out fairly well.But the first time you try something that seems simple but works very differently, say try to turn left by turning the 'steering' wheel to the left, you're going to be sorry.Making parallels between IT and business is what business people do when confronted with having to run IT based on their business experience rather than learning how to do it right.
They are rationalizing using the tools they already have, and protecting their ego by trying to make the rest of the model fit them.
When they try to turn left and end up pranging*, they can blame the IT department for not falling into line with the business model.
They can use that excuse when interviewing for their next position and get the sympathy of all the other business people who commiserate with colleagues forced to work with the IT people.Do your business-based IT manager a favor.
Soothe his ego by telling him he drives like Mario Andretti.
Then brief him on the basic differences between driving the track at Indy, and moving in 3 dimensions using pitch, yaw and roll, and how if he tries to take the first turn the way he used to, he's going to get a valuable lesson in roll, as well as in pranging.
Then take him out for a few touch-and-goes and let him hold the stick for a bit on the level.
Then sign him up for beginner's ground school, which would be learning to be a help desk droid.
If you're stuck with him, you might just try to get him to learn to be part of the department rather than part of the problem.And if he refuses?
Fuck it, strap him in and let him solo.
It won't take long.
There's lots of these guys that the big kids upstairs want sent your way, for various reasons, and 'making IT work' may be the mantra but it's not always the reason.Pranging, from prang v.
(Brit.): To land an airplane nose first, usually at high speed, often under power, almost certainly by someone with no previous experience landing an airplane in that fashion.
The lucky tend to learn to land in other ways after this, the smart learn to before this, the rest never get a second chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</id>
	<title>My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business</i>

</p><p>IT is a service, a service that makes your business run better.  And the better that service is shaped to your business, the more adapted to how you work, the more efficiently your business operates.  The biggest payback from IT is saving money.  A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned.  A dollar saved is pure profit.  A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.

</p><p>Too many times IT people operate from a perspective that's more religion than service.  The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out, it's when upgrading saves the company money.  A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it doesn't belong.  Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7.  Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations, maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs. A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.  Yet I see that a lot.  Not what works best, but what the techs know.  Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business IT is a service , a service that makes your business run better .
And the better that service is shaped to your business , the more adapted to how you work , the more efficiently your business operates .
The biggest payback from IT is saving money .
A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned .
A dollar saved is pure profit .
A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business .
Too many times IT people operate from a perspective that 's more religion than service .
The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out , it 's when upgrading saves the company money .
A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it does n't belong .
Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7 .
Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations , maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs .
A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money , not what your technical people know and where they 've invested their training .
Yet I see that a lot .
Not what works best , but what the techs know .
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Bob Lewis dispels the familiar litany that 'IT should be run as a business

IT is a service, a service that makes your business run better.
And the better that service is shaped to your business, the more adapted to how you work, the more efficiently your business operates.
The biggest payback from IT is saving money.
A dollar saved is better than a dollar earned.
A dollar saved is pure profit.
A dollar earned you have to subtract the cost of overhead and doing business.
Too many times IT people operate from a perspective that's more religion than service.
The time to upgrade to Windows 7 is not when SP 1 comes out, it's when upgrading saves the company money.
A service mentality does not try to force-fit technology where it doesn't belong.
Maybe not everyone in the company needs Windows 7.
Maybe the call center can use Ubuntu workstations, maybe the graphics departments work more efficiently with Macs.
A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.
Yet I see that a lot.
Not what works best, but what the techs know.
Their expertise limits their technology choices instead of expanding them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825840</id>
	<title>Re:Right idea, weird reasoning</title>
	<author>greyline</author>
	<datestamp>1263901500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My question is: why does the article constantly refer to <i>he and him</i>? Are there no women who work in IT? Of course there are. Little things like that, in addition to the buzzword-heavy quote, just show the unprofessionalism of the writer.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My question is : why does the article constantly refer to he and him ?
Are there no women who work in IT ?
Of course there are .
Little things like that , in addition to the buzzword-heavy quote , just show the unprofessionalism of the writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My question is: why does the article constantly refer to he and him?
Are there no women who work in IT?
Of course there are.
Little things like that, in addition to the buzzword-heavy quote, just show the unprofessionalism of the writer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831394</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you ever worked with big iron?  I used to work with folks who ran their software on IBM mainframes, DEC VMS, HP equiv.  These systems provide extreme backward compatibility - because their customers will run the same software for 20+ years.  Why?  Because it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you ever worked with big iron ?
I used to work with folks who ran their software on IBM mainframes , DEC VMS , HP equiv .
These systems provide extreme backward compatibility - because their customers will run the same software for 20 + years .
Why ? Because it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you ever worked with big iron?
I used to work with folks who ran their software on IBM mainframes, DEC VMS, HP equiv.
These systems provide extreme backward compatibility - because their customers will run the same software for 20+ years.
Why?  Because it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825588</id>
	<title>So many misinterpretations</title>
	<author>cjonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1263900360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see many misinterpretations of Bob Lewis's article.</p><p>If I understand him correctly, he is saying that IT should be integrated, not apart from the business. This is in fact what my book <i>Value-Driven IT</i> is about. (<a href="http://valuedrivenit.com/" title="valuedrivenit.com" rel="nofollow">http://valuedrivenit.com/</a> [valuedrivenit.com]) Mark Lutchen, the author of <i>Managing IT as a Business</i>, wrote a foreword for this book.</p><p>However, the choice should depend on whether IT is strategic to an organization: if it is, then IT needs to be integrated, and should not be a separate internal business or a service.</p><p>If IT is strategic to an organization, it no longer makes sense to distinguish between technical issues and "business issues": in such an organization, technical issues *are* business issues. The key is to know what issues matter, and what issues don't.</p><p>This does not mean that there should not be an "IT department": there should, to manage infrastructure; but strategic IT should not be the province of a separate "non-business" group.</p><p>In my book I advocate for having a strategic "change management" group that spearheads and oversees strategic change, including technology deployment. This helps to ensure that the organization has a center of excellence for managing change, thereby reducing risk, reducing time to implement change, and increasing the agility of the organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see many misinterpretations of Bob Lewis 's article.If I understand him correctly , he is saying that IT should be integrated , not apart from the business .
This is in fact what my book Value-Driven IT is about .
( http : //valuedrivenit.com/ [ valuedrivenit.com ] ) Mark Lutchen , the author of Managing IT as a Business , wrote a foreword for this book.However , the choice should depend on whether IT is strategic to an organization : if it is , then IT needs to be integrated , and should not be a separate internal business or a service.If IT is strategic to an organization , it no longer makes sense to distinguish between technical issues and " business issues " : in such an organization , technical issues * are * business issues .
The key is to know what issues matter , and what issues do n't.This does not mean that there should not be an " IT department " : there should , to manage infrastructure ; but strategic IT should not be the province of a separate " non-business " group.In my book I advocate for having a strategic " change management " group that spearheads and oversees strategic change , including technology deployment .
This helps to ensure that the organization has a center of excellence for managing change , thereby reducing risk , reducing time to implement change , and increasing the agility of the organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see many misinterpretations of Bob Lewis's article.If I understand him correctly, he is saying that IT should be integrated, not apart from the business.
This is in fact what my book Value-Driven IT is about.
(http://valuedrivenit.com/ [valuedrivenit.com]) Mark Lutchen, the author of Managing IT as a Business, wrote a foreword for this book.However, the choice should depend on whether IT is strategic to an organization: if it is, then IT needs to be integrated, and should not be a separate internal business or a service.If IT is strategic to an organization, it no longer makes sense to distinguish between technical issues and "business issues": in such an organization, technical issues *are* business issues.
The key is to know what issues matter, and what issues don't.This does not mean that there should not be an "IT department": there should, to manage infrastructure; but strategic IT should not be the province of a separate "non-business" group.In my book I advocate for having a strategic "change management" group that spearheads and oversees strategic change, including technology deployment.
This helps to ensure that the organization has a center of excellence for managing change, thereby reducing risk, reducing time to implement change, and increasing the agility of the organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827592</id>
	<title>I work in an IT dept for a local gov't</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1263914280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sent the link to this article around this morning because I believe its exactly whats wrong with our IT dept.  We bill departments every year for our work.  I think in our case, the solution would be to fund IT off the top of the city's budget and then we would not have to bill the departments.  We could treat them as partners rather than customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sent the link to this article around this morning because I believe its exactly whats wrong with our IT dept .
We bill departments every year for our work .
I think in our case , the solution would be to fund IT off the top of the city 's budget and then we would not have to bill the departments .
We could treat them as partners rather than customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sent the link to this article around this morning because I believe its exactly whats wrong with our IT dept.
We bill departments every year for our work.
I think in our case, the solution would be to fund IT off the top of the city's budget and then we would not have to bill the departments.
We could treat them as partners rather than customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830116</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>st0nes</author>
	<datestamp>1263988500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Install Windows updates, latest security patches: Ongoing cost, $1.1million annual: profit, $0. Return on investment: 0\%.

Backup the servers with all the business documents, records, and databases: Cost: $5 million annual, profit: $0. ROI: 0\%.</p></div> </blockquote><p>

Not quite: latest security patches &amp; backups --&gt; ISO certification --&gt; more clients --&gt; profit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Install Windows updates , latest security patches : Ongoing cost , $ 1.1million annual : profit , $ 0 .
Return on investment : 0 \ % .
Backup the servers with all the business documents , records , and databases : Cost : $ 5 million annual , profit : $ 0 .
ROI : 0 \ % .
Not quite : latest security patches &amp; backups -- &gt; ISO certification -- &gt; more clients -- &gt; profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install Windows updates, latest security patches: Ongoing cost, $1.1million annual: profit, $0.
Return on investment: 0\%.
Backup the servers with all the business documents, records, and databases: Cost: $5 million annual, profit: $0.
ROI: 0\%.
Not quite: latest security patches &amp; backups --&gt; ISO certification --&gt; more clients --&gt; profit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828146</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1263919980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From my perspective as an IT person - who has to spend a scary amount of time writing scripts and reverse-engineering various black-box 'off the shelf' software packages just to figure out how to install them, let alone get logs off them and get them to communicate with the rest of our IT infrastructure - I think most 'software developers' could really benefit by spending a few years in the IT trenches.</p><p>Software development really suffers from living in its own little bubble - a bubble where the developer thinks nothing of wiping and installing a whole new machine just to put their new package on, nobody ever needs to install patches, and there's no infrastructure. Software developers often seem to believe that their program is the world, a unique beautiful snowflake. Which is fine, it's their baby, they have some pride in their work. But a program is not a standalone thing, and a developer's job really isn't even started until they've worked out how their program integrates with everything else in a corporate infrastructure: how it gets deployed, how it gets configuration settings, how it gets updates (no, having an 'update now' window pop up to the user is THE WRONG ANSWER in the corporate world), where it emits logs to and in what format, how it talks to the Web server, how it talks to file and print, how it works on multiple OSes, etc.</p><p>And yes, this also applies to the new world of 'web applications'. Just because you've made a flashy new web service doesn't mean you've achieved anything - how do the users export their data, how do you send real-time updates to all the other web services on the planet, how do you track evolving standards, etc.</p><p>There's only one discipline in computing which is *all about* integrating the diverse systems that we all use every day - and that's IT! Hi there. You write the stuff - but we have to *make it work for us*. Sometimes that's amazingly difficult, and we just have to wonder what you development guys are smoking, and if you've ever tried to use your tools - or at least, use them in conjunction with anyone else's.</p><p>'IT' shouldn't be a separate thing. It should be called something like 'integration science' perhaps and analyzed like computer science.</p><p>For instance: making a very complex network configuration change is just like programming, but it gets no respect or tool support. 'Code' gets all sorts of IDEs, version-control systems - but can you version-control all the changes you make to your VMware images, Cisco switch configs, Active Directory schemas, databases, DNS entries, backups scripts?  Can you manage all of these with a unified tool, as if they were all vital parts of the unified computing machine which in fact they are? No of course you can't.   Why? What's stopping you?</p><p>The sheer diversity of incompatible tools, the lack of integration or standards, but mainly, the deep-seated attitude that 'IT is just janitor work' and that 'the real interesting challenges are in software development, not installation/support/deployment'. Sorry, but not from where I'm standing.</p><p>The network IS the computer now - so how about we get the tools we need to program that computer with a unified language? and save and load programs from it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From my perspective as an IT person - who has to spend a scary amount of time writing scripts and reverse-engineering various black-box 'off the shelf ' software packages just to figure out how to install them , let alone get logs off them and get them to communicate with the rest of our IT infrastructure - I think most 'software developers ' could really benefit by spending a few years in the IT trenches.Software development really suffers from living in its own little bubble - a bubble where the developer thinks nothing of wiping and installing a whole new machine just to put their new package on , nobody ever needs to install patches , and there 's no infrastructure .
Software developers often seem to believe that their program is the world , a unique beautiful snowflake .
Which is fine , it 's their baby , they have some pride in their work .
But a program is not a standalone thing , and a developer 's job really is n't even started until they 've worked out how their program integrates with everything else in a corporate infrastructure : how it gets deployed , how it gets configuration settings , how it gets updates ( no , having an 'update now ' window pop up to the user is THE WRONG ANSWER in the corporate world ) , where it emits logs to and in what format , how it talks to the Web server , how it talks to file and print , how it works on multiple OSes , etc.And yes , this also applies to the new world of 'web applications' .
Just because you 've made a flashy new web service does n't mean you 've achieved anything - how do the users export their data , how do you send real-time updates to all the other web services on the planet , how do you track evolving standards , etc.There 's only one discipline in computing which is * all about * integrating the diverse systems that we all use every day - and that 's IT !
Hi there .
You write the stuff - but we have to * make it work for us * .
Sometimes that 's amazingly difficult , and we just have to wonder what you development guys are smoking , and if you 've ever tried to use your tools - or at least , use them in conjunction with anyone else 's .
'IT ' should n't be a separate thing .
It should be called something like 'integration science ' perhaps and analyzed like computer science.For instance : making a very complex network configuration change is just like programming , but it gets no respect or tool support .
'Code ' gets all sorts of IDEs , version-control systems - but can you version-control all the changes you make to your VMware images , Cisco switch configs , Active Directory schemas , databases , DNS entries , backups scripts ?
Can you manage all of these with a unified tool , as if they were all vital parts of the unified computing machine which in fact they are ?
No of course you ca n't .
Why ? What 's stopping you ? The sheer diversity of incompatible tools , the lack of integration or standards , but mainly , the deep-seated attitude that 'IT is just janitor work ' and that 'the real interesting challenges are in software development , not installation/support/deployment' .
Sorry , but not from where I 'm standing.The network IS the computer now - so how about we get the tools we need to program that computer with a unified language ?
and save and load programs from it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From my perspective as an IT person - who has to spend a scary amount of time writing scripts and reverse-engineering various black-box 'off the shelf' software packages just to figure out how to install them, let alone get logs off them and get them to communicate with the rest of our IT infrastructure - I think most 'software developers' could really benefit by spending a few years in the IT trenches.Software development really suffers from living in its own little bubble - a bubble where the developer thinks nothing of wiping and installing a whole new machine just to put their new package on, nobody ever needs to install patches, and there's no infrastructure.
Software developers often seem to believe that their program is the world, a unique beautiful snowflake.
Which is fine, it's their baby, they have some pride in their work.
But a program is not a standalone thing, and a developer's job really isn't even started until they've worked out how their program integrates with everything else in a corporate infrastructure: how it gets deployed, how it gets configuration settings, how it gets updates (no, having an 'update now' window pop up to the user is THE WRONG ANSWER in the corporate world), where it emits logs to and in what format, how it talks to the Web server, how it talks to file and print, how it works on multiple OSes, etc.And yes, this also applies to the new world of 'web applications'.
Just because you've made a flashy new web service doesn't mean you've achieved anything - how do the users export their data, how do you send real-time updates to all the other web services on the planet, how do you track evolving standards, etc.There's only one discipline in computing which is *all about* integrating the diverse systems that we all use every day - and that's IT!
Hi there.
You write the stuff - but we have to *make it work for us*.
Sometimes that's amazingly difficult, and we just have to wonder what you development guys are smoking, and if you've ever tried to use your tools - or at least, use them in conjunction with anyone else's.
'IT' shouldn't be a separate thing.
It should be called something like 'integration science' perhaps and analyzed like computer science.For instance: making a very complex network configuration change is just like programming, but it gets no respect or tool support.
'Code' gets all sorts of IDEs, version-control systems - but can you version-control all the changes you make to your VMware images, Cisco switch configs, Active Directory schemas, databases, DNS entries, backups scripts?
Can you manage all of these with a unified tool, as if they were all vital parts of the unified computing machine which in fact they are?
No of course you can't.
Why? What's stopping you?The sheer diversity of incompatible tools, the lack of integration or standards, but mainly, the deep-seated attitude that 'IT is just janitor work' and that 'the real interesting challenges are in software development, not installation/support/deployment'.
Sorry, but not from where I'm standing.The network IS the computer now - so how about we get the tools we need to program that computer with a unified language?
and save and load programs from it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825070</id>
	<title>Common Sense Still exists?</title>
	<author>coreolyn</author>
	<datestamp>1263898200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been many years since I heard some common sense on this subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been many years since I heard some common sense on this subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been many years since I heard some common sense on this subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829618</id>
	<title>IT as a business is the solution not the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at an IT managed services company that caters to small and medium sized businesses. Basically they outsource their entire IT department/role to us. We provide a 24 hour helpdesk and onsite technical support/consulting services as required. Most of my clients pay us by the hour through prepaid hours packs for any contact time with us along with travel time and minimum callouts durations etc.</p><p>It never ceases to amaze me how money is the great equalizer in most of my situations. Let say that a customer wants me to do something that is inefficient and will take me a long time to do but might save them some time/effort. I just put a estimated time/dollar value on it and present that to both the person and their boss/decision maker. If there is a better solution that might cost more upfront but would be cheaper/better in support costs etc in the long run I present that along side. If that thing, even if it is inefficient or stupid, still gets approved as requested then my company makes money for my time in doing that thing as they were warned it would. Most of the time, though, as soon as they see the dollar value the whole idea gets dropped as it can't be justified in financial terms by the person signing the checks and that decision is enforced on the requester by their superior rather than some IT guy.</p><p>By the very nature of my job I am getting paid for my advice/assistance at a high hourly rate - everybody understands how much I cost and my advice and time tends to be more respected because of it. Knowing my stuff, staying on top of the latest technologies and trends, doing good work and doing right by the clients has also earned me their respect in most cases. Also, strangely, wearing a suit seems to help quite a bit too. As such, I've found a professional client/vendor relationship billed/paid by the hour works better than a coworker/coworker one for cutting through the crap - particularly when the co-worker asking the thing of IT believes themselves to be superior in the organisation yet isn't accountable for their time/pay etc. It also saves them money vs. having a full time IT guy in most cases (I know because in many cases we replaced one on that basis).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at an IT managed services company that caters to small and medium sized businesses .
Basically they outsource their entire IT department/role to us .
We provide a 24 hour helpdesk and onsite technical support/consulting services as required .
Most of my clients pay us by the hour through prepaid hours packs for any contact time with us along with travel time and minimum callouts durations etc.It never ceases to amaze me how money is the great equalizer in most of my situations .
Let say that a customer wants me to do something that is inefficient and will take me a long time to do but might save them some time/effort .
I just put a estimated time/dollar value on it and present that to both the person and their boss/decision maker .
If there is a better solution that might cost more upfront but would be cheaper/better in support costs etc in the long run I present that along side .
If that thing , even if it is inefficient or stupid , still gets approved as requested then my company makes money for my time in doing that thing as they were warned it would .
Most of the time , though , as soon as they see the dollar value the whole idea gets dropped as it ca n't be justified in financial terms by the person signing the checks and that decision is enforced on the requester by their superior rather than some IT guy.By the very nature of my job I am getting paid for my advice/assistance at a high hourly rate - everybody understands how much I cost and my advice and time tends to be more respected because of it .
Knowing my stuff , staying on top of the latest technologies and trends , doing good work and doing right by the clients has also earned me their respect in most cases .
Also , strangely , wearing a suit seems to help quite a bit too .
As such , I 've found a professional client/vendor relationship billed/paid by the hour works better than a coworker/coworker one for cutting through the crap - particularly when the co-worker asking the thing of IT believes themselves to be superior in the organisation yet is n't accountable for their time/pay etc .
It also saves them money vs. having a full time IT guy in most cases ( I know because in many cases we replaced one on that basis ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at an IT managed services company that caters to small and medium sized businesses.
Basically they outsource their entire IT department/role to us.
We provide a 24 hour helpdesk and onsite technical support/consulting services as required.
Most of my clients pay us by the hour through prepaid hours packs for any contact time with us along with travel time and minimum callouts durations etc.It never ceases to amaze me how money is the great equalizer in most of my situations.
Let say that a customer wants me to do something that is inefficient and will take me a long time to do but might save them some time/effort.
I just put a estimated time/dollar value on it and present that to both the person and their boss/decision maker.
If there is a better solution that might cost more upfront but would be cheaper/better in support costs etc in the long run I present that along side.
If that thing, even if it is inefficient or stupid, still gets approved as requested then my company makes money for my time in doing that thing as they were warned it would.
Most of the time, though, as soon as they see the dollar value the whole idea gets dropped as it can't be justified in financial terms by the person signing the checks and that decision is enforced on the requester by their superior rather than some IT guy.By the very nature of my job I am getting paid for my advice/assistance at a high hourly rate - everybody understands how much I cost and my advice and time tends to be more respected because of it.
Knowing my stuff, staying on top of the latest technologies and trends, doing good work and doing right by the clients has also earned me their respect in most cases.
Also, strangely, wearing a suit seems to help quite a bit too.
As such, I've found a professional client/vendor relationship billed/paid by the hour works better than a coworker/coworker one for cutting through the crap - particularly when the co-worker asking the thing of IT believes themselves to be superior in the organisation yet isn't accountable for their time/pay etc.
It also saves them money vs. having a full time IT guy in most cases (I know because in many cases we replaced one on that basis).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824714</id>
	<title>Same old shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263896760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They said the same shit ten years ago.  When they did, buncha geezers yelled that they told them way before that.  And then...
</p><p>
That's just it.  Stay right there. I'm just gonna blow up my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said the same shit ten years ago .
When they did , buncha geezers yelled that they told them way before that .
And then.. . That 's just it .
Stay right there .
I 'm just gon na blow up my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They said the same shit ten years ago.
When they did, buncha geezers yelled that they told them way before that.
And then...

That's just it.
Stay right there.
I'm just gonna blow up my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831424</id>
	<title>Internal use of free market forces</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264000860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT is chronically understaffed and overcommitted.  Then we turn to overpriced outsourcers to try and fill the gap.  The overhead cost of IT is eaten by the company, either as vague "indirect expense" or charged back to other departments using some kind of algorithm.   Nobody likes either method, for a wide variety of reasons.  I propose a new approach.</p><p>Instead of each business unit haggling about how they get overcharged for their share of IT, I suggest that IT offer "core services" that everybody needs and get charged back at an equitable rate per user.  For everything else (software development or other specialized projects), the various departments bid against each other for the resources to do the job.  For those initiatives with high ROI, nobody will mind spending some of their budget on IT.  On the other hand, when the marketing director wants the umpteenth total redesign of the company website, she will have to outbid the process automation group that wants to reprogram the robots who make the widgets.  The message to internal customers is clear: buy only what you can justify.  The message to internal IT is equally clear: use supply and demand to drive your priority list.</p><p>Theoretically, internal IT should be able to undercut outsourcers almost every time (but only if they are competent).  There may be occasions where outsourcing is unavoidable, in which case their finished product has to be handed over to the internal production group anyway.  Let internal IT hire people within the limits of their revenue, use outsourcers for temporary "surge" capability, and drop any project that can't be delivered within the bids from their sponsors.</p><p>Using this approach, some of the profit from IT activities will end up in the IT department.  That means revenue and profitability goals for IT, much the same as the company's operational departments.  To me, the only real drawback is the requirement for honest budgeting.  All of the non-IT departments would have to include non-trivial amounts of budget money allocated to IT services and projects.  Current industry practices enable a number of management fantasies to be fulfilled.  You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people long enough to finish the fiscal year.  Current practices are far from ideal.</p><p>Similar to theories of health care reform, the key is to make sure customers spend some of their own money, without losing economies of scale or encouraging counterproductive behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT is chronically understaffed and overcommitted .
Then we turn to overpriced outsourcers to try and fill the gap .
The overhead cost of IT is eaten by the company , either as vague " indirect expense " or charged back to other departments using some kind of algorithm .
Nobody likes either method , for a wide variety of reasons .
I propose a new approach.Instead of each business unit haggling about how they get overcharged for their share of IT , I suggest that IT offer " core services " that everybody needs and get charged back at an equitable rate per user .
For everything else ( software development or other specialized projects ) , the various departments bid against each other for the resources to do the job .
For those initiatives with high ROI , nobody will mind spending some of their budget on IT .
On the other hand , when the marketing director wants the umpteenth total redesign of the company website , she will have to outbid the process automation group that wants to reprogram the robots who make the widgets .
The message to internal customers is clear : buy only what you can justify .
The message to internal IT is equally clear : use supply and demand to drive your priority list.Theoretically , internal IT should be able to undercut outsourcers almost every time ( but only if they are competent ) .
There may be occasions where outsourcing is unavoidable , in which case their finished product has to be handed over to the internal production group anyway .
Let internal IT hire people within the limits of their revenue , use outsourcers for temporary " surge " capability , and drop any project that ca n't be delivered within the bids from their sponsors.Using this approach , some of the profit from IT activities will end up in the IT department .
That means revenue and profitability goals for IT , much the same as the company 's operational departments .
To me , the only real drawback is the requirement for honest budgeting .
All of the non-IT departments would have to include non-trivial amounts of budget money allocated to IT services and projects .
Current industry practices enable a number of management fantasies to be fulfilled .
You can fool some of the people all of the time , and all of the people long enough to finish the fiscal year .
Current practices are far from ideal.Similar to theories of health care reform , the key is to make sure customers spend some of their own money , without losing economies of scale or encouraging counterproductive behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT is chronically understaffed and overcommitted.
Then we turn to overpriced outsourcers to try and fill the gap.
The overhead cost of IT is eaten by the company, either as vague "indirect expense" or charged back to other departments using some kind of algorithm.
Nobody likes either method, for a wide variety of reasons.
I propose a new approach.Instead of each business unit haggling about how they get overcharged for their share of IT, I suggest that IT offer "core services" that everybody needs and get charged back at an equitable rate per user.
For everything else (software development or other specialized projects), the various departments bid against each other for the resources to do the job.
For those initiatives with high ROI, nobody will mind spending some of their budget on IT.
On the other hand, when the marketing director wants the umpteenth total redesign of the company website, she will have to outbid the process automation group that wants to reprogram the robots who make the widgets.
The message to internal customers is clear: buy only what you can justify.
The message to internal IT is equally clear: use supply and demand to drive your priority list.Theoretically, internal IT should be able to undercut outsourcers almost every time (but only if they are competent).
There may be occasions where outsourcing is unavoidable, in which case their finished product has to be handed over to the internal production group anyway.
Let internal IT hire people within the limits of their revenue, use outsourcers for temporary "surge" capability, and drop any project that can't be delivered within the bids from their sponsors.Using this approach, some of the profit from IT activities will end up in the IT department.
That means revenue and profitability goals for IT, much the same as the company's operational departments.
To me, the only real drawback is the requirement for honest budgeting.
All of the non-IT departments would have to include non-trivial amounts of budget money allocated to IT services and projects.
Current industry practices enable a number of management fantasies to be fulfilled.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people long enough to finish the fiscal year.
Current practices are far from ideal.Similar to theories of health care reform, the key is to make sure customers spend some of their own money, without losing economies of scale or encouraging counterproductive behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827122</id>
	<title>Typical</title>
	<author>flynn23</author>
	<datestamp>1263909840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article isn't going to enlighten you or give you the secret to running a top notch IT organization. And neither are most of the comments that have risen to the top. There is no magic wand. Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably selling something. There's just hard work and a commitment to excellence with the acceptance that there are certain things which are inevitable:</p><p>1) You're in business to produce a profit. You're not in business to procure, deploy, or worship technology. Technology is a tool. No different than a screwdriver or a machine press or a clock. It helps the workers be more productive and capable of producing a profit. Nothing more. Nothing less. Used well, technology is power. Used unwisely, it's an anvil around your neck.<br>2) Organizations are groups of people. People in groups don't communicate well. People one on one usually communicate very well. Whenever you get a large enough group, there will be miscommunication and that thwarts most "techniques" or "methodologies" engineered to negate this effect. The sooner you realize that you can't engineer away humanity, the sooner you'll be successful in using one on one relationships to get most of your wins. ALL organizations will NEVER be in sync at any given time.<br>3) No matter where you work, there will be a bell curve of capability and skill. You'll have a few rock stars, most people will be in the middle, and there will be a few truly aweful people. It doesn't matter if it's Google or the Army or AJ's Nails and Hair. No organization can attract the best and brightest all the time for all needs. So even if you have good processes and good relationships, they won't always work and you won't always get good results. The best you can do is work hard to provide the best you can and accept the fact that not everyone you are working with is capable or motivated to do the same. Stop complaining and do what is reasonable to solve the problem. That will bring you the most success. And happiness. Read this again, and then lower where you think YOU are in the bell curve.<br>4) People are relying on you to guide them and help them to make informed and intelligent decisions. To them, what you do is scary and expensive and magical all at the same time. Keep the previous 3 points in mind on how they will present their problem to you and respond to the solution that you present to them.</p><p>I've been a CIO for everything from startups to publicly traded companies to companies I've founded. The principals don't change. Just the budgets and egos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is n't going to enlighten you or give you the secret to running a top notch IT organization .
And neither are most of the comments that have risen to the top .
There is no magic wand .
Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably selling something .
There 's just hard work and a commitment to excellence with the acceptance that there are certain things which are inevitable : 1 ) You 're in business to produce a profit .
You 're not in business to procure , deploy , or worship technology .
Technology is a tool .
No different than a screwdriver or a machine press or a clock .
It helps the workers be more productive and capable of producing a profit .
Nothing more .
Nothing less .
Used well , technology is power .
Used unwisely , it 's an anvil around your neck.2 ) Organizations are groups of people .
People in groups do n't communicate well .
People one on one usually communicate very well .
Whenever you get a large enough group , there will be miscommunication and that thwarts most " techniques " or " methodologies " engineered to negate this effect .
The sooner you realize that you ca n't engineer away humanity , the sooner you 'll be successful in using one on one relationships to get most of your wins .
ALL organizations will NEVER be in sync at any given time.3 ) No matter where you work , there will be a bell curve of capability and skill .
You 'll have a few rock stars , most people will be in the middle , and there will be a few truly aweful people .
It does n't matter if it 's Google or the Army or AJ 's Nails and Hair .
No organization can attract the best and brightest all the time for all needs .
So even if you have good processes and good relationships , they wo n't always work and you wo n't always get good results .
The best you can do is work hard to provide the best you can and accept the fact that not everyone you are working with is capable or motivated to do the same .
Stop complaining and do what is reasonable to solve the problem .
That will bring you the most success .
And happiness .
Read this again , and then lower where you think YOU are in the bell curve.4 ) People are relying on you to guide them and help them to make informed and intelligent decisions .
To them , what you do is scary and expensive and magical all at the same time .
Keep the previous 3 points in mind on how they will present their problem to you and respond to the solution that you present to them.I 've been a CIO for everything from startups to publicly traded companies to companies I 've founded .
The principals do n't change .
Just the budgets and egos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article isn't going to enlighten you or give you the secret to running a top notch IT organization.
And neither are most of the comments that have risen to the top.
There is no magic wand.
Anyone that tells you otherwise is probably selling something.
There's just hard work and a commitment to excellence with the acceptance that there are certain things which are inevitable:1) You're in business to produce a profit.
You're not in business to procure, deploy, or worship technology.
Technology is a tool.
No different than a screwdriver or a machine press or a clock.
It helps the workers be more productive and capable of producing a profit.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Used well, technology is power.
Used unwisely, it's an anvil around your neck.2) Organizations are groups of people.
People in groups don't communicate well.
People one on one usually communicate very well.
Whenever you get a large enough group, there will be miscommunication and that thwarts most "techniques" or "methodologies" engineered to negate this effect.
The sooner you realize that you can't engineer away humanity, the sooner you'll be successful in using one on one relationships to get most of your wins.
ALL organizations will NEVER be in sync at any given time.3) No matter where you work, there will be a bell curve of capability and skill.
You'll have a few rock stars, most people will be in the middle, and there will be a few truly aweful people.
It doesn't matter if it's Google or the Army or AJ's Nails and Hair.
No organization can attract the best and brightest all the time for all needs.
So even if you have good processes and good relationships, they won't always work and you won't always get good results.
The best you can do is work hard to provide the best you can and accept the fact that not everyone you are working with is capable or motivated to do the same.
Stop complaining and do what is reasonable to solve the problem.
That will bring you the most success.
And happiness.
Read this again, and then lower where you think YOU are in the bell curve.4) People are relying on you to guide them and help them to make informed and intelligent decisions.
To them, what you do is scary and expensive and magical all at the same time.
Keep the previous 3 points in mind on how they will present their problem to you and respond to the solution that you present to them.I've been a CIO for everything from startups to publicly traded companies to companies I've founded.
The principals don't change.
Just the budgets and egos.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</id>
	<title>IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>aquatone282</author>
	<datestamp>1263896760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Janitors don't produce any revenue for a company, but they are necessary for the people who do.</p><p>The same goes for IT staff.  Unless your company is selling IT services, they don't produce any revenue for the company but are necessary for the people who do.</p><p>IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.</p><p>Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.  MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Janitors do n't produce any revenue for a company , but they are necessary for the people who do.The same goes for IT staff .
Unless your company is selling IT services , they do n't produce any revenue for the company but are necessary for the people who do.IT people understand a developer 's job about as much as a janitor does.Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult .
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Janitors don't produce any revenue for a company, but they are necessary for the people who do.The same goes for IT staff.
Unless your company is selling IT services, they don't produce any revenue for the company but are necessary for the people who do.IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825724</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263900900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct, but also have to look at the cost of support.  If you have people on staff or locally affordable that can support Ubuntu workstations, then absolutly give your call center workstations.  But if the only people you have on staff know Windows, then giving your call center Ubuntu can end up costing you more simply because they won't know how to support it.</p><p>The best option may not be the least expensive up front, but the least expensive over it's anticipated life.  Including the "soft" costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct , but also have to look at the cost of support .
If you have people on staff or locally affordable that can support Ubuntu workstations , then absolutly give your call center workstations .
But if the only people you have on staff know Windows , then giving your call center Ubuntu can end up costing you more simply because they wo n't know how to support it.The best option may not be the least expensive up front , but the least expensive over it 's anticipated life .
Including the " soft " costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct, but also have to look at the cost of support.
If you have people on staff or locally affordable that can support Ubuntu workstations, then absolutly give your call center workstations.
But if the only people you have on staff know Windows, then giving your call center Ubuntu can end up costing you more simply because they won't know how to support it.The best option may not be the least expensive up front, but the least expensive over it's anticipated life.
Including the "soft" costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825012</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you drop your trash on the ground wherever you please?  Why not? You are far more important than the janitors, both by title and salary.</p><p>Why not let the janitors follow you around and clean up after you as you constantly change their job requirements? YOUR job produces the revenue for THEIR salary, right? They should accommodate your wishes at all times.</p><p>Oh, wait, if you did that, you'd just be an asshole. The amount of extra babysitting you'd require from the cleaning staff means other coworkers aren't getting the support <i>they</i> need.</p><p>Your petty "IT are just janitor schmucks" attitude is self-centered, narrow-minded, and utterly detrimental to the company as a whole. All you amount to is being the jackass that never flushes toilet 'cause he's too important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you drop your trash on the ground wherever you please ?
Why not ?
You are far more important than the janitors , both by title and salary.Why not let the janitors follow you around and clean up after you as you constantly change their job requirements ?
YOUR job produces the revenue for THEIR salary , right ?
They should accommodate your wishes at all times.Oh , wait , if you did that , you 'd just be an asshole .
The amount of extra babysitting you 'd require from the cleaning staff means other coworkers are n't getting the support they need.Your petty " IT are just janitor schmucks " attitude is self-centered , narrow-minded , and utterly detrimental to the company as a whole .
All you amount to is being the jackass that never flushes toilet 'cause he 's too important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you drop your trash on the ground wherever you please?
Why not?
You are far more important than the janitors, both by title and salary.Why not let the janitors follow you around and clean up after you as you constantly change their job requirements?
YOUR job produces the revenue for THEIR salary, right?
They should accommodate your wishes at all times.Oh, wait, if you did that, you'd just be an asshole.
The amount of extra babysitting you'd require from the cleaning staff means other coworkers aren't getting the support they need.Your petty "IT are just janitor schmucks" attitude is self-centered, narrow-minded, and utterly detrimental to the company as a whole.
All you amount to is being the jackass that never flushes toilet 'cause he's too important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826400</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1263904440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an embedded software engineer, and I <b>don't</b> work in IT.  In my company, all of us software developers have our own department, but our computers are owned and serviced by the IT department.  The products our company makes have embedded CPUs and lots of software; IT is there to provide us with the tools to do our jobs.</p><p>The problem is that, for some reason, computer equipment is IT's responsibility, and comes out of their budget.  So, as an engineer, if I need a $20,000 oscilloscope or whatever, I can get that, and it comes out the engineering department's budget.  But if I want a $2,000 computer so I don't have to wait half a day to recompile our application, that's a no-go.  So we're all sitting around with truly ancient computers (some running Win2000) and tiny monitors (= lots of scrolling) because the IT department doesn't want to buy new computers, even though it would greatly boost our productivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an embedded software engineer , and I do n't work in IT .
In my company , all of us software developers have our own department , but our computers are owned and serviced by the IT department .
The products our company makes have embedded CPUs and lots of software ; IT is there to provide us with the tools to do our jobs.The problem is that , for some reason , computer equipment is IT 's responsibility , and comes out of their budget .
So , as an engineer , if I need a $ 20,000 oscilloscope or whatever , I can get that , and it comes out the engineering department 's budget .
But if I want a $ 2,000 computer so I do n't have to wait half a day to recompile our application , that 's a no-go .
So we 're all sitting around with truly ancient computers ( some running Win2000 ) and tiny monitors ( = lots of scrolling ) because the IT department does n't want to buy new computers , even though it would greatly boost our productivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an embedded software engineer, and I don't work in IT.
In my company, all of us software developers have our own department, but our computers are owned and serviced by the IT department.
The products our company makes have embedded CPUs and lots of software; IT is there to provide us with the tools to do our jobs.The problem is that, for some reason, computer equipment is IT's responsibility, and comes out of their budget.
So, as an engineer, if I need a $20,000 oscilloscope or whatever, I can get that, and it comes out the engineering department's budget.
But if I want a $2,000 computer so I don't have to wait half a day to recompile our application, that's a no-go.
So we're all sitting around with truly ancient computers (some running Win2000) and tiny monitors (= lots of scrolling) because the IT department doesn't want to buy new computers, even though it would greatly boost our productivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825872</id>
	<title>bad management</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1263901620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.</p><p>The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management. TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM. TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure (divisions/departments) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a "cost centre" and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique. </p><p>People like to blame accountants for this, but that's because... accounting is a different department. Sure, this "hairball" IT system I'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else's fault, but that "chargeback" system, well accounting is in charge of that aren't they! </p><p>FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek. It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book. It massages the ego by implying that yes, you are being looked down upon, you should be more important and given more freedom and control ("IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum"); it's all someone else's fault ("hard to get the business leaders to step up"); and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ("full employment for accountants"). Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars, all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords (unsurprising given the reference material).  </p><p>By the way, most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying. It can be, but don't for a minute assume it's also easier. One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management .
TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM .
TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure ( divisions/departments ) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a " cost centre " and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique .
People like to blame accountants for this , but that 's because... accounting is a different department .
Sure , this " hairball " IT system I 'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else 's fault , but that " chargeback " system , well accounting is in charge of that are n't they !
FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek .
It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book .
It massages the ego by implying that yes , you are being looked down upon , you should be more important and given more freedom and control ( " IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker , and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum " ) ; it 's all someone else 's fault ( " hard to get the business leaders to step up " ) ; and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ( " full employment for accountants " ) .
Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars , all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords ( unsurprising given the reference material ) .
By the way , most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying .
It can be , but do n't for a minute assume it 's also easier .
One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse problems stemming from bad management with problems stemming from a bad model.The idea of internal customers comes from Total Quality Management.
TFA bears absolutely no resemblance to TQM.
TFA describes what happens when you have the old style business structure (divisions/departments) and a pointy-haired boss learns accounting are calling IT a "cost centre" and then mistakes an accounting technique for a management technique.
People like to blame accountants for this, but that's because... accounting is a different department.
Sure, this "hairball" IT system I'm supposed to be in charge of is all someone else's fault, but that "chargeback" system, well accounting is in charge of that aren't they!
FWIW TFA is quite disappointing for Infoweek.
It displays numerous hallmarks of a self-help book.
It massages the ego by implying that yes, you are being looked down upon, you should be more important and given more freedom and control ("IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum"); it's all someone else's fault ("hard to get the business leaders to step up"); and genial bashing of accountants in order to be all like-minded and chummy ("full employment for accountants").
Ironic then that all does is suggest adopting a business structure that has been core material in accounting studies since Japan started making cars, all wrapped up in executive-speak babble and buzzwords (unsurprising given the reference material).
By the way, most of the time people seem to assume doing the whole integrated thing will automatically be more productive and satisfying.
It can be, but don't for a minute assume it's also easier.
One thing the traditional model does supply is a command structure and set procedures - take that out and everybody finds they have to do stuff that previously they associated with management. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825758</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All that is really easy to solve and in fact is solved by any accountant with half a clue, perhaps even as little as a 1/4 of a clue.</p><p>IT Bills the rest of the company for its work and services.</p><p>Thats all it takes.  IT is no longer a cost center, its now an internal profit center.  No money actually has to change hands of course, but it puts real value on the services that they provide and gives everyone a little perspective.</p><p>If they decide they don't want to spend the money on IT because they see how much you bill out to other divisions, then you know what?  They were going to cut IT anyway.</p><p>Of course, the real problem is that this discussion is not being done by professionals, but rather a bunch of guys who think because they have a tax id number that they are professionals and know what they are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All that is really easy to solve and in fact is solved by any accountant with half a clue , perhaps even as little as a 1/4 of a clue.IT Bills the rest of the company for its work and services.Thats all it takes .
IT is no longer a cost center , its now an internal profit center .
No money actually has to change hands of course , but it puts real value on the services that they provide and gives everyone a little perspective.If they decide they do n't want to spend the money on IT because they see how much you bill out to other divisions , then you know what ?
They were going to cut IT anyway.Of course , the real problem is that this discussion is not being done by professionals , but rather a bunch of guys who think because they have a tax id number that they are professionals and know what they are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that is really easy to solve and in fact is solved by any accountant with half a clue, perhaps even as little as a 1/4 of a clue.IT Bills the rest of the company for its work and services.Thats all it takes.
IT is no longer a cost center, its now an internal profit center.
No money actually has to change hands of course, but it puts real value on the services that they provide and gives everyone a little perspective.If they decide they don't want to spend the money on IT because they see how much you bill out to other divisions, then you know what?
They were going to cut IT anyway.Of course, the real problem is that this discussion is not being done by professionals, but rather a bunch of guys who think because they have a tax id number that they are professionals and know what they are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827984</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is, at the start of a project, negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT's cut will be."</p><p>You do realize that cost/management accounting can be very complex, and getting the right incentives in place to turn the IT department from cost center into a profit center effectively really would be difficult.</p><p>Your best bet is to hope that the 'stupid' commerce people in management realize the benefits of IT, and that the IT department can show how their department helps the bottom line since that's what concerns management most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is , at the start of a project , negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT 's cut will be .
" You do realize that cost/management accounting can be very complex , and getting the right incentives in place to turn the IT department from cost center into a profit center effectively really would be difficult.Your best bet is to hope that the 'stupid ' commerce people in management realize the benefits of IT , and that the IT department can show how their department helps the bottom line since that 's what concerns management most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ya if they really wanted to run IT as a business what they would have to do is, at the start of a project, negotiate how much the project was worth to the business and what IT's cut will be.
"You do realize that cost/management accounting can be very complex, and getting the right incentives in place to turn the IT department from cost center into a profit center effectively really would be difficult.Your best bet is to hope that the 'stupid' commerce people in management realize the benefits of IT, and that the IT department can show how their department helps the bottom line since that's what concerns management most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829576</id>
	<title>Re:Sorry, this will never work....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263982080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a company where for years IT was cherished, we were seen as a department (albeit small one) two of us ran the show, and my boss who was the original systems admin in the company, brought the company from a retro-fitted house full of inefficient, hodge podge machines that werent even networked (they bought whatever was at staples and used floppies to transfer data with one computer on the internet) to a multi-location 500 seat network that was centrally managed and had high availability. The technology helped the company move to where it was making millions, the fact the upgraded systems allowed them to increase communication and workflow, and compliance with the state in regards of taking care of wards of the state made the company extremely profitable.</p><p>Now, everything was going fine, we were treated well, our opinions mattered, etc. Hard to believe I know. The thing was, the company wasnt infected by the corporate culture virus...yet.</p><p>about a year and a half ago, the CEO is convinced by a group of CEOs that he needed to hire on a bunch of suits and corporate types, that's when it went downhill.</p><p>First they axed a ton of employees, giving them a catch-22 that would force them to quit (ie, take a manager and basically turn them into a cleaning person, and pay them minimum wage. the manager quit before that happened) thus saving the company money in unemployment.<br>Next we got our balls busted over everything, and do I mean everything. We were threatened with our jobs, told that we were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable (they ate these words later) and were put under higher scrutiny because we were "techie nerd types" who like to wantonly spend money that could be used for the bottom line. The new management types saw us as a pack of lazy fucks who eat pizza all day and play WoW, because we were "nerds".</p><p>Next we get moved out of home office, to one of the worst places to be moved to, one of the facilities where we dealt with wards of the state, which put us at risk of injury (some of these people were violent as hell, and hospitalized people on occasion)<br>put in a room that was not designed to hold tech equipment, and was far from secure.</p><p>After that, we got non-tech jobs thrown on us, such as auditing bills having anything to do with anything that used electricity, because "that's what IT people are for"</p><p>then they began hiring more corporate culture types, we got the CPA from hell. She was not only one of the least desirable people on earth, she also had an insanely skewed view on her position the company, and sadly, management bowed before her.</p><p>She managed to get my boss fired within two weeks of joining the company because he was the head of a software project that managed our internal data and kept track of time clocking.</p><p>She would make claims how it wasnt compliant, yet would never tell us how, and how we had to attend expensive seminars. Meanwhile a product a friend of hers made was pushed over the in-house product we had that worked (it needed some polish though) she would say "we can review the in-house project after we do the presentation on this software" which she managed to steamroll anyone who went against her.</p><p>That's then how my boss lost his job. He objected during the meeting, she pointed in his face and accused him of all sorts of things, basically putting him in a bad spot in the views of management.</p><p>Then she made claims after the meeting that he had been snooping on her email, after she had specifically asked him to fix something on her computer days prior. She claimed he knew things they hadnt discussed (but had in reality.)</p><p>regardless of proof or evidence, they soon had him locked out of the company some few days later and then let him go. I had to go through all of his belongings and sort them out from company property (which the company tried to lay claim on most of it)</p><p>Needless to say, I was the new sysadmin, sorta. This is where it got really shitty. The CPA , who not only pulled that garbage, also liked to</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a company where for years IT was cherished , we were seen as a department ( albeit small one ) two of us ran the show , and my boss who was the original systems admin in the company , brought the company from a retro-fitted house full of inefficient , hodge podge machines that werent even networked ( they bought whatever was at staples and used floppies to transfer data with one computer on the internet ) to a multi-location 500 seat network that was centrally managed and had high availability .
The technology helped the company move to where it was making millions , the fact the upgraded systems allowed them to increase communication and workflow , and compliance with the state in regards of taking care of wards of the state made the company extremely profitable.Now , everything was going fine , we were treated well , our opinions mattered , etc .
Hard to believe I know .
The thing was , the company wasnt infected by the corporate culture virus...yet.about a year and a half ago , the CEO is convinced by a group of CEOs that he needed to hire on a bunch of suits and corporate types , that 's when it went downhill.First they axed a ton of employees , giving them a catch-22 that would force them to quit ( ie , take a manager and basically turn them into a cleaning person , and pay them minimum wage .
the manager quit before that happened ) thus saving the company money in unemployment.Next we got our balls busted over everything , and do I mean everything .
We were threatened with our jobs , told that we were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable ( they ate these words later ) and were put under higher scrutiny because we were " techie nerd types " who like to wantonly spend money that could be used for the bottom line .
The new management types saw us as a pack of lazy fucks who eat pizza all day and play WoW , because we were " nerds " .Next we get moved out of home office , to one of the worst places to be moved to , one of the facilities where we dealt with wards of the state , which put us at risk of injury ( some of these people were violent as hell , and hospitalized people on occasion ) put in a room that was not designed to hold tech equipment , and was far from secure.After that , we got non-tech jobs thrown on us , such as auditing bills having anything to do with anything that used electricity , because " that 's what IT people are for " then they began hiring more corporate culture types , we got the CPA from hell .
She was not only one of the least desirable people on earth , she also had an insanely skewed view on her position the company , and sadly , management bowed before her.She managed to get my boss fired within two weeks of joining the company because he was the head of a software project that managed our internal data and kept track of time clocking.She would make claims how it wasnt compliant , yet would never tell us how , and how we had to attend expensive seminars .
Meanwhile a product a friend of hers made was pushed over the in-house product we had that worked ( it needed some polish though ) she would say " we can review the in-house project after we do the presentation on this software " which she managed to steamroll anyone who went against her.That 's then how my boss lost his job .
He objected during the meeting , she pointed in his face and accused him of all sorts of things , basically putting him in a bad spot in the views of management.Then she made claims after the meeting that he had been snooping on her email , after she had specifically asked him to fix something on her computer days prior .
She claimed he knew things they hadnt discussed ( but had in reality .
) regardless of proof or evidence , they soon had him locked out of the company some few days later and then let him go .
I had to go through all of his belongings and sort them out from company property ( which the company tried to lay claim on most of it ) Needless to say , I was the new sysadmin , sorta .
This is where it got really shitty .
The CPA , who not only pulled that garbage , also liked to</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a company where for years IT was cherished, we were seen as a department (albeit small one) two of us ran the show, and my boss who was the original systems admin in the company, brought the company from a retro-fitted house full of inefficient, hodge podge machines that werent even networked (they bought whatever was at staples and used floppies to transfer data with one computer on the internet) to a multi-location 500 seat network that was centrally managed and had high availability.
The technology helped the company move to where it was making millions, the fact the upgraded systems allowed them to increase communication and workflow, and compliance with the state in regards of taking care of wards of the state made the company extremely profitable.Now, everything was going fine, we were treated well, our opinions mattered, etc.
Hard to believe I know.
The thing was, the company wasnt infected by the corporate culture virus...yet.about a year and a half ago, the CEO is convinced by a group of CEOs that he needed to hire on a bunch of suits and corporate types, that's when it went downhill.First they axed a ton of employees, giving them a catch-22 that would force them to quit (ie, take a manager and basically turn them into a cleaning person, and pay them minimum wage.
the manager quit before that happened) thus saving the company money in unemployment.Next we got our balls busted over everything, and do I mean everything.
We were threatened with our jobs, told that we were a dime a dozen and easily replaceable (they ate these words later) and were put under higher scrutiny because we were "techie nerd types" who like to wantonly spend money that could be used for the bottom line.
The new management types saw us as a pack of lazy fucks who eat pizza all day and play WoW, because we were "nerds".Next we get moved out of home office, to one of the worst places to be moved to, one of the facilities where we dealt with wards of the state, which put us at risk of injury (some of these people were violent as hell, and hospitalized people on occasion)put in a room that was not designed to hold tech equipment, and was far from secure.After that, we got non-tech jobs thrown on us, such as auditing bills having anything to do with anything that used electricity, because "that's what IT people are for"then they began hiring more corporate culture types, we got the CPA from hell.
She was not only one of the least desirable people on earth, she also had an insanely skewed view on her position the company, and sadly, management bowed before her.She managed to get my boss fired within two weeks of joining the company because he was the head of a software project that managed our internal data and kept track of time clocking.She would make claims how it wasnt compliant, yet would never tell us how, and how we had to attend expensive seminars.
Meanwhile a product a friend of hers made was pushed over the in-house product we had that worked (it needed some polish though) she would say "we can review the in-house project after we do the presentation on this software" which she managed to steamroll anyone who went against her.That's then how my boss lost his job.
He objected during the meeting, she pointed in his face and accused him of all sorts of things, basically putting him in a bad spot in the views of management.Then she made claims after the meeting that he had been snooping on her email, after she had specifically asked him to fix something on her computer days prior.
She claimed he knew things they hadnt discussed (but had in reality.
)regardless of proof or evidence, they soon had him locked out of the company some few days later and then let him go.
I had to go through all of his belongings and sort them out from company property (which the company tried to lay claim on most of it)Needless to say, I was the new sysadmin, sorta.
This is where it got really shitty.
The CPA , who not only pulled that garbage, also liked to</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824892</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1263897600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.  MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.</p></div><p>To put it in a car analogy, it is like rolling through stop signs. It saves you one or two seconds each time you do it, but when you get caught you end up losing all the time you saved twenty-fold.</p><p>The "hoops" are in place for a reason. You may not get immediate gratification, but overall your job happens more efficiently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult .
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.To put it in a car analogy , it is like rolling through stop signs .
It saves you one or two seconds each time you do it , but when you get caught you end up losing all the time you saved twenty-fold.The " hoops " are in place for a reason .
You may not get immediate gratification , but overall your job happens more efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.To put it in a car analogy, it is like rolling through stop signs.
It saves you one or two seconds each time you do it, but when you get caught you end up losing all the time you saved twenty-fold.The "hoops" are in place for a reason.
You may not get immediate gratification, but overall your job happens more efficiently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827396</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>cmburns69</author>
	<datestamp>1263912480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.</p></div></blockquote><p>Re-training your technical people to know the other technologies has costs as well. For some organizations, it would cost more to re-train IT to support other technologies than it would to shoehorn everyone onto the same platform.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money , not what your technical people know and where they 've invested their training.Re-training your technical people to know the other technologies has costs as well .
For some organizations , it would cost more to re-train IT to support other technologies than it would to shoehorn everyone onto the same platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A service mentality focuses on what works best for the company and saves money, not what your technical people know and where they've invested their training.Re-training your technical people to know the other technologies has costs as well.
For some organizations, it would cost more to re-train IT to support other technologies than it would to shoehorn everyone onto the same platform.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827280</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263911160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with running IT in this way, as TFA points out, is that it creates no incentive to use the "internal IT company" vs picking some outsourcing firm which operates in exactly the same way. It doesn't matter that their product is ultimately worse than yours because the outsourcing firm delivers immediate cost savings (which helps the manager get promoted and the consultant get paid). When the project ultimately bombs several years latter the guilty ones are long gone and the IT department (or what is left of it) will be asked to pick up the pieces. No doubt the outsourcing firms would like for IT to adopt a "fee for service" paradigm, as TFA points out, because it makes it easier for consultants and outsourcing firms to pitch a "switch" to management. The fact that the outsourcing firms and consultants are selling management a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig\_in\_a\_poke" title="wikipedia.org">pig in a poke</a> [wikipedia.org] doesn't become apparent until much later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with running IT in this way , as TFA points out , is that it creates no incentive to use the " internal IT company " vs picking some outsourcing firm which operates in exactly the same way .
It does n't matter that their product is ultimately worse than yours because the outsourcing firm delivers immediate cost savings ( which helps the manager get promoted and the consultant get paid ) .
When the project ultimately bombs several years latter the guilty ones are long gone and the IT department ( or what is left of it ) will be asked to pick up the pieces .
No doubt the outsourcing firms would like for IT to adopt a " fee for service " paradigm , as TFA points out , because it makes it easier for consultants and outsourcing firms to pitch a " switch " to management .
The fact that the outsourcing firms and consultants are selling management a pig in a poke [ wikipedia.org ] does n't become apparent until much later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with running IT in this way, as TFA points out, is that it creates no incentive to use the "internal IT company" vs picking some outsourcing firm which operates in exactly the same way.
It doesn't matter that their product is ultimately worse than yours because the outsourcing firm delivers immediate cost savings (which helps the manager get promoted and the consultant get paid).
When the project ultimately bombs several years latter the guilty ones are long gone and the IT department (or what is left of it) will be asked to pick up the pieces.
No doubt the outsourcing firms would like for IT to adopt a "fee for service" paradigm, as TFA points out, because it makes it easier for consultants and outsourcing firms to pitch a "switch" to management.
The fact that the outsourcing firms and consultants are selling management a pig in a poke [wikipedia.org] doesn't become apparent until much later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829976</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263986820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant. No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).</p></div><p> This is a very similar argument over the role of IT than only a few years ago where expressed over the role of marketing. The solution was integrated marketing. Perhaps soon somebody writes a textbook promoting integrated IT. Next step would be to formulate the amazing concepts of integrated management and accounting. What a revolution would that be!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The perennial problem of IT : It 's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts , from the POV of an accountant .
No direct revenue generation means " less spent is better " , with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded , well populated IT group ( as opposed to not having one or both ) .
This is a very similar argument over the role of IT than only a few years ago where expressed over the role of marketing .
The solution was integrated marketing .
Perhaps soon somebody writes a textbook promoting integrated IT .
Next step would be to formulate the amazing concepts of integrated management and accounting .
What a revolution would that be !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perennial problem of IT: It's benefits are several degrees removed from its efforts, from the POV of an accountant.
No direct revenue generation means "less spent is better", with no solid way to quantify the benefits of having a well funded, well populated IT group (as opposed to not having one or both).
This is a very similar argument over the role of IT than only a few years ago where expressed over the role of marketing.
The solution was integrated marketing.
Perhaps soon somebody writes a textbook promoting integrated IT.
Next step would be to formulate the amazing concepts of integrated management and accounting.
What a revolution would that be!
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824992</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263897900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point is to provide more customer service, not less, because you're playing on the "same team."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point is to provide more customer service , not less , because you 're playing on the " same team .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point is to provide more customer service, not less, because you're playing on the "same team.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825926</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Atrox666</author>
	<datestamp>1263901920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can hire 5 people from India for your salary and they will accomplish about twice what you do(all totaled).<br>They tried to outsource my department..it failed.<br>We were able to get rid of most of the developers since they're a dime a dozen.<br>I do both coding and 3rd level support and the support people are by far more competent with a computer than the developers who get lost outside their IDE.<br>Your software won't be worth crap if you can't get it distributed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can hire 5 people from India for your salary and they will accomplish about twice what you do ( all totaled ) .They tried to outsource my department..it failed.We were able to get rid of most of the developers since they 're a dime a dozen.I do both coding and 3rd level support and the support people are by far more competent with a computer than the developers who get lost outside their IDE.Your software wo n't be worth crap if you ca n't get it distributed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can hire 5 people from India for your salary and they will accomplish about twice what you do(all totaled).They tried to outsource my department..it failed.We were able to get rid of most of the developers since they're a dime a dozen.I do both coding and 3rd level support and the support people are by far more competent with a computer than the developers who get lost outside their IDE.Your software won't be worth crap if you can't get it distributed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830974</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263998160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would the company rather save $40k now, or have to spend $150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products?</p></div></blockquote><p>That's the right question to ask, but don't assume that the answer is always the former.</p><p>Even assuming that it's only <em>one</em> spend of $40, the Net Present Value of that $40k in 10 years is often over $100k. Add in a second $40k spend for another upgrade in 5 years, and you're well over the $150k.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would the company rather save $ 40k now , or have to spend $ 150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products ? That 's the right question to ask , but do n't assume that the answer is always the former.Even assuming that it 's only one spend of $ 40 , the Net Present Value of that $ 40k in 10 years is often over $ 100k .
Add in a second $ 40k spend for another upgrade in 5 years , and you 're well over the $ 150k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would the company rather save $40k now, or have to spend $150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products?That's the right question to ask, but don't assume that the answer is always the former.Even assuming that it's only one spend of $40, the Net Present Value of that $40k in 10 years is often over $100k.
Add in a second $40k spend for another upgrade in 5 years, and you're well over the $150k.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827768</id>
	<title>What about outsourced IT?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1263916080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a 3rd party vendor of technology solutions, I read this slightly differently, because we are, in effect, the "IT department" for much of our clientelle. What I read this as is that we should, as a company, be focusing more on the needs of our clients' clients, rather than our clients. Which leads us into a strange territory where we are telling our clients what to do.</p><p>This is a good take, and I agree with OP and PP that this pretty much hits the nail on the head. Obviously, within our company, we treat IT as a core part of the company, it IS the core part of our company! IT - it's what we sell! But to the extent that we act as the IT department for our clients, we should take advice here and look even further outward towards the clients' clients who ultimately do use our software services as well!</p><p>It's a Loooooooonnnnnnngggggg reach getting out that far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a 3rd party vendor of technology solutions , I read this slightly differently , because we are , in effect , the " IT department " for much of our clientelle .
What I read this as is that we should , as a company , be focusing more on the needs of our clients ' clients , rather than our clients .
Which leads us into a strange territory where we are telling our clients what to do.This is a good take , and I agree with OP and PP that this pretty much hits the nail on the head .
Obviously , within our company , we treat IT as a core part of the company , it IS the core part of our company !
IT - it 's what we sell !
But to the extent that we act as the IT department for our clients , we should take advice here and look even further outward towards the clients ' clients who ultimately do use our software services as well ! It 's a Loooooooonnnnnnngggggg reach getting out that far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a 3rd party vendor of technology solutions, I read this slightly differently, because we are, in effect, the "IT department" for much of our clientelle.
What I read this as is that we should, as a company, be focusing more on the needs of our clients' clients, rather than our clients.
Which leads us into a strange territory where we are telling our clients what to do.This is a good take, and I agree with OP and PP that this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Obviously, within our company, we treat IT as a core part of the company, it IS the core part of our company!
IT - it's what we sell!
But to the extent that we act as the IT department for our clients, we should take advice here and look even further outward towards the clients' clients who ultimately do use our software services as well!It's a Loooooooonnnnnnngggggg reach getting out that far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826218</id>
	<title>Re:Poor communication skills</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1263903420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.</p></div><p>I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have. Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication. In many places this is actually by design and intent.</p><p>By stopping the impenetrable castle defense of IT from hiding behind ticket systems, voice mails, and layers of management, IT needs to be in bed with business. A shared pain is a fixed problem so long as money can be found. And if it can't, everyone understands rather than it being, "that damn IT group preventing my success."</p><p>Since IT is always treated as a cost center, the rest of the company is always looking to save money but axing IT. In turn, for IT to justify IT's continued existence, IT is always looking to build a billable project out of a mole hill. This does nothing but create an internal adversarial relationship between IT and the rest of the company. This in turn creates the human factors which create barriers in communication.</p><p>In most every large shop I've been in, IT actively works to provide value to the company and desperately wants to contribute to the company's overall success. The problem is, the entire rest of the company sees IT as a cost center and they are therefore actively working to eliminate IT, directly or indirectly. This requires IT justify EVERYTHING.</p><p>Until corporate culture changes, the "rest of the company" is the sole reason why IT not only costs more than it should but why mole hill tasks becomes a mountain of a project. Simply put, IT has no other choice as survival rides on it. Which finally brings us full circle. Companies have two choices; one, isolate IT and demand they justify their existence every day at every turn, whereby human factors take over, including breakdown of communication. Two, integrate them and empower them to help them help you; whereby IT's business becomes the company's success. Integration requires communication. The later of the two means those same human factors which cause so many problems in the first case, actually benefit the entire company in the second case. The second case is only possible with effective communication, and tearing down barriers is in everyone's self interest.</p><p>In short, communication is important to all businesses. The question is, are you creating barriers or enlisting everyone to assist in your success? Right now the common business mantra is the former rather than the later. If businesses want better IT bang for the buck, they need only look at their own corporate culture and ask, "how can I help you help me?" Synergy, when not used as a worthless buzzword, really can be a wonderful thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills , attributes these flaws to " IT as a business " , and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.I do n't think you understood what you read else you could n't have come to the conclusion you have .
Right now , " IT as a business " , creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication .
In many places this is actually by design and intent.By stopping the impenetrable castle defense of IT from hiding behind ticket systems , voice mails , and layers of management , IT needs to be in bed with business .
A shared pain is a fixed problem so long as money can be found .
And if it ca n't , everyone understands rather than it being , " that damn IT group preventing my success .
" Since IT is always treated as a cost center , the rest of the company is always looking to save money but axing IT .
In turn , for IT to justify IT 's continued existence , IT is always looking to build a billable project out of a mole hill .
This does nothing but create an internal adversarial relationship between IT and the rest of the company .
This in turn creates the human factors which create barriers in communication.In most every large shop I 've been in , IT actively works to provide value to the company and desperately wants to contribute to the company 's overall success .
The problem is , the entire rest of the company sees IT as a cost center and they are therefore actively working to eliminate IT , directly or indirectly .
This requires IT justify EVERYTHING.Until corporate culture changes , the " rest of the company " is the sole reason why IT not only costs more than it should but why mole hill tasks becomes a mountain of a project .
Simply put , IT has no other choice as survival rides on it .
Which finally brings us full circle .
Companies have two choices ; one , isolate IT and demand they justify their existence every day at every turn , whereby human factors take over , including breakdown of communication .
Two , integrate them and empower them to help them help you ; whereby IT 's business becomes the company 's success .
Integration requires communication .
The later of the two means those same human factors which cause so many problems in the first case , actually benefit the entire company in the second case .
The second case is only possible with effective communication , and tearing down barriers is in everyone 's self interest.In short , communication is important to all businesses .
The question is , are you creating barriers or enlisting everyone to assist in your success ?
Right now the common business mantra is the former rather than the later .
If businesses want better IT bang for the buck , they need only look at their own corporate culture and ask , " how can I help you help me ?
" Synergy , when not used as a worthless buzzword , really can be a wonderful thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have.
Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication.
In many places this is actually by design and intent.By stopping the impenetrable castle defense of IT from hiding behind ticket systems, voice mails, and layers of management, IT needs to be in bed with business.
A shared pain is a fixed problem so long as money can be found.
And if it can't, everyone understands rather than it being, "that damn IT group preventing my success.
"Since IT is always treated as a cost center, the rest of the company is always looking to save money but axing IT.
In turn, for IT to justify IT's continued existence, IT is always looking to build a billable project out of a mole hill.
This does nothing but create an internal adversarial relationship between IT and the rest of the company.
This in turn creates the human factors which create barriers in communication.In most every large shop I've been in, IT actively works to provide value to the company and desperately wants to contribute to the company's overall success.
The problem is, the entire rest of the company sees IT as a cost center and they are therefore actively working to eliminate IT, directly or indirectly.
This requires IT justify EVERYTHING.Until corporate culture changes, the "rest of the company" is the sole reason why IT not only costs more than it should but why mole hill tasks becomes a mountain of a project.
Simply put, IT has no other choice as survival rides on it.
Which finally brings us full circle.
Companies have two choices; one, isolate IT and demand they justify their existence every day at every turn, whereby human factors take over, including breakdown of communication.
Two, integrate them and empower them to help them help you; whereby IT's business becomes the company's success.
Integration requires communication.
The later of the two means those same human factors which cause so many problems in the first case, actually benefit the entire company in the second case.
The second case is only possible with effective communication, and tearing down barriers is in everyone's self interest.In short, communication is important to all businesses.
The question is, are you creating barriers or enlisting everyone to assist in your success?
Right now the common business mantra is the former rather than the later.
If businesses want better IT bang for the buck, they need only look at their own corporate culture and ask, "how can I help you help me?
" Synergy, when not used as a worthless buzzword, really can be a wonderful thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828978</id>
	<title>IT Maturity Models</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263930180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several options for maturing / growing an IT department. Moving from a cost center to a critical component of the company.</p><p>Most of the models have 4-5 stages, with the least mature characterized the IT department being driven by external events such as user requests. They have unenforced IT policy, patches are applied manually and in an adhoc manner. IT is seen as a cost center with varying levels of values. Costs usually decrease as IT becomes more mature, and its perceived value becomes greater. The first two models are platform and technology independent. The third is very MS specific and provides a great technology roadmap.</p><p>The Sloan school of management has a very good book - I don't have the title since I lent it out and it never returned. The model is platform agnostic.<br>http://www.cioindex.com/nm/articlefiles/2779-IT\%20Alignment\%20Maturity\%20Model.pdf<br>http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/files/pdfs/45309SxW.pdf</p><p>Carnegie Mellon has a model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability\_Maturity\_Model<br>I don't have any experience with this.</p><p>Microsoft has a very MS centric model, with detailed implementation steps.<br>http://microsoftio.partnersalesresources.com/<br>http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/infrastructure/default.aspx</p><p>The MS and Sloan information make a very useful pair. Sloan offers great conceptual guidance, and the MS information provides very concrete implementation steps. Even if your IT department is not MS centric, the information can still be used; substitute Active Directory with LDAP, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several options for maturing / growing an IT department .
Moving from a cost center to a critical component of the company.Most of the models have 4-5 stages , with the least mature characterized the IT department being driven by external events such as user requests .
They have unenforced IT policy , patches are applied manually and in an adhoc manner .
IT is seen as a cost center with varying levels of values .
Costs usually decrease as IT becomes more mature , and its perceived value becomes greater .
The first two models are platform and technology independent .
The third is very MS specific and provides a great technology roadmap.The Sloan school of management has a very good book - I do n't have the title since I lent it out and it never returned .
The model is platform agnostic.http : //www.cioindex.com/nm/articlefiles/2779-IT \ % 20Alignment \ % 20Maturity \ % 20Model.pdfhttp : //sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/files/pdfs/45309SxW.pdfCarnegie Mellon has a model : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability \ _Maturity \ _ModelI do n't have any experience with this.Microsoft has a very MS centric model , with detailed implementation steps.http : //microsoftio.partnersalesresources.com/http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/infrastructure/default.aspxThe MS and Sloan information make a very useful pair .
Sloan offers great conceptual guidance , and the MS information provides very concrete implementation steps .
Even if your IT department is not MS centric , the information can still be used ; substitute Active Directory with LDAP , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several options for maturing / growing an IT department.
Moving from a cost center to a critical component of the company.Most of the models have 4-5 stages, with the least mature characterized the IT department being driven by external events such as user requests.
They have unenforced IT policy, patches are applied manually and in an adhoc manner.
IT is seen as a cost center with varying levels of values.
Costs usually decrease as IT becomes more mature, and its perceived value becomes greater.
The first two models are platform and technology independent.
The third is very MS specific and provides a great technology roadmap.The Sloan school of management has a very good book - I don't have the title since I lent it out and it never returned.
The model is platform agnostic.http://www.cioindex.com/nm/articlefiles/2779-IT\%20Alignment\%20Maturity\%20Model.pdfhttp://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/files/pdfs/45309SxW.pdfCarnegie Mellon has a model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability\_Maturity\_ModelI don't have any experience with this.Microsoft has a very MS centric model, with detailed implementation steps.http://microsoftio.partnersalesresources.com/http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/infrastructure/default.aspxThe MS and Sloan information make a very useful pair.
Sloan offers great conceptual guidance, and the MS information provides very concrete implementation steps.
Even if your IT department is not MS centric, the information can still be used; substitute Active Directory with LDAP, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825912</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.</p></div><p>You are aware that a lot of IT jobs cite "B.S. in Computer Science or equiv." as a requirement, right?  Sit a *nix sysadmin down in front of a terminal and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code, and he'll happily whip out vi, gdb, and gcc.  Sit a Windows admin down in front of a Windows machine and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code, and he'll fire up Visual Studio (or mingw).  They may not get it done as quickly or cleanly as a regular developer, but they're light years ahead of your average janitor.<br>
Now reverse the roles. Sure, a dev will have an innate grasp for scripting, but he'll be just as slow if not slower to get IT work done.  My home computer is easy to set up (and that's what devs gauge IT work by), but setting up a business desktop, where there are policies in place to ensure the security of the company's data, is a lot more difficult and requires planning.  Setting up and maintaining the servers and networks even more so (those can't just take a reimage). Making all of the above function as a system to work efficiently is the end goal.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult. MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.</p></div><p>We'll have to talk to Information Security, Human Resources, and Legal about that.  When you violate company policy by uninstalling a critical patch or by installing limewire or eDonkey, you open the company to risk, and stand to lose the company more money than I'd ever get paid for 60 years of service.  Mordac, Preventer of Information Services, totally needs a twin brother: Cadrom, Enabler of Information Leaks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IT people understand a developer 's job about as much as a janitor does.You are aware that a lot of IT jobs cite " B.S .
in Computer Science or equiv .
" as a requirement , right ?
Sit a * nix sysadmin down in front of a terminal and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code , and he 'll happily whip out vi , gdb , and gcc .
Sit a Windows admin down in front of a Windows machine and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code , and he 'll fire up Visual Studio ( or mingw ) .
They may not get it done as quickly or cleanly as a regular developer , but they 're light years ahead of your average janitor .
Now reverse the roles .
Sure , a dev will have an innate grasp for scripting , but he 'll be just as slow if not slower to get IT work done .
My home computer is easy to set up ( and that 's what devs gauge IT work by ) , but setting up a business desktop , where there are policies in place to ensure the security of the company 's data , is a lot more difficult and requires planning .
Setting up and maintaining the servers and networks even more so ( those ca n't just take a reimage ) .
Making all of the above function as a system to work efficiently is the end goal.Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult .
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.We 'll have to talk to Information Security , Human Resources , and Legal about that .
When you violate company policy by uninstalling a critical patch or by installing limewire or eDonkey , you open the company to risk , and stand to lose the company more money than I 'd ever get paid for 60 years of service .
Mordac , Preventer of Information Services , totally needs a twin brother : Cadrom , Enabler of Information Leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT people understand a developer's job about as much as a janitor does.You are aware that a lot of IT jobs cite "B.S.
in Computer Science or equiv.
" as a requirement, right?
Sit a *nix sysadmin down in front of a terminal and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code, and he'll happily whip out vi, gdb, and gcc.
Sit a Windows admin down in front of a Windows machine and tell him he needs to fix a bug in some C code, and he'll fire up Visual Studio (or mingw).
They may not get it done as quickly or cleanly as a regular developer, but they're light years ahead of your average janitor.
Now reverse the roles.
Sure, a dev will have an innate grasp for scripting, but he'll be just as slow if not slower to get IT work done.
My home computer is easy to set up (and that's what devs gauge IT work by), but setting up a business desktop, where there are policies in place to ensure the security of the company's data, is a lot more difficult and requires planning.
Setting up and maintaining the servers and networks even more so (those can't just take a reimage).
Making all of the above function as a system to work efficiently is the end goal.Seriously - get overselves and STOP finding ways to make my job more difficult.
MY job produces the revenue that pays YOUR salary.We'll have to talk to Information Security, Human Resources, and Legal about that.
When you violate company policy by uninstalling a critical patch or by installing limewire or eDonkey, you open the company to risk, and stand to lose the company more money than I'd ever get paid for 60 years of service.
Mordac, Preventer of Information Services, totally needs a twin brother: Cadrom, Enabler of Information Leaks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825530</id>
	<title>Re:Poor communication skills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263900120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference is: When your IT support is internal, you can just run down the hall and talk to someone. When its outsourced, its a contracts issue. Now your legal and purchasing departments start whining about changes, negotiations and costs. And you can forget about tweaking stuff that didn't quite work right the first time around. Internally, the IT people have the same goal you do; to build and run the best system for your company. The IT vendor will be hunting through the requirements documents for your screw-ups so they won't have to eat the costs of a fix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is : When your IT support is internal , you can just run down the hall and talk to someone .
When its outsourced , its a contracts issue .
Now your legal and purchasing departments start whining about changes , negotiations and costs .
And you can forget about tweaking stuff that did n't quite work right the first time around .
Internally , the IT people have the same goal you do ; to build and run the best system for your company .
The IT vendor will be hunting through the requirements documents for your screw-ups so they wo n't have to eat the costs of a fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is: When your IT support is internal, you can just run down the hall and talk to someone.
When its outsourced, its a contracts issue.
Now your legal and purchasing departments start whining about changes, negotiations and costs.
And you can forget about tweaking stuff that didn't quite work right the first time around.
Internally, the IT people have the same goal you do; to build and run the best system for your company.
The IT vendor will be hunting through the requirements documents for your screw-ups so they won't have to eat the costs of a fix.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827562</id>
	<title>Weird supposition</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1263914100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>He could offer a better solution, at about a quarter of the cost</p></div></blockquote><p>I suppose both the costing and idea that things will be better were extracted from an orifice which is where the tablets are emerging from.  You can only smile and nod and wait for the crazy man to go away.<br>I really wonder how those people can think solution A is going to be cheaper than solution B when they do not have any idea what is involved in either and what those things cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He could offer a better solution , at about a quarter of the costI suppose both the costing and idea that things will be better were extracted from an orifice which is where the tablets are emerging from .
You can only smile and nod and wait for the crazy man to go away.I really wonder how those people can think solution A is going to be cheaper than solution B when they do not have any idea what is involved in either and what those things cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He could offer a better solution, at about a quarter of the costI suppose both the costing and idea that things will be better were extracted from an orifice which is where the tablets are emerging from.
You can only smile and nod and wait for the crazy man to go away.I really wonder how those people can think solution A is going to be cheaper than solution B when they do not have any idea what is involved in either and what those things cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826374</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1263904380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh? In every shop I've ever seen, software development is a sub-group within the IT department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh ?
In every shop I 've ever seen , software development is a sub-group within the IT department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh?
In every shop I've ever seen, software development is a sub-group within the IT department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826054</id>
	<title>Re:IT Are Like Janitors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey developer - all you do is list the steps involved in doing something.  Usually, someone else tells you the job, and you just write down the detailed steps.  Calm down.  Writing instructions isn't a big deal - even if your instructions are in a language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey developer - all you do is list the steps involved in doing something .
Usually , someone else tells you the job , and you just write down the detailed steps .
Calm down .
Writing instructions is n't a big deal - even if your instructions are in a language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey developer - all you do is list the steps involved in doing something.
Usually, someone else tells you the job, and you just write down the detailed steps.
Calm down.
Writing instructions isn't a big deal - even if your instructions are in a language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825018</id>
	<title>"Necessary Evil"</title>
	<author>U8MyData</author>
	<datestamp>1263898020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been the wearer of many hats in both public and private IT organizations.  I have been known to term IT efforts to IT managers (who are often there as non-technical sorts) that the effort is seen as a "Necessary Evil"  IT costs money; equipment, software, employees, benefits, etc.  The real benefits of the effort are often taken for granted and not seen (that is if you are doing it right).  The fact is that business cannot survive or compete without some type of reliance on IT in its many forms.  For management to continue to deny that IT exists and requires resources is irresponsible.  IT is as essential as paying the bills, marketing, and sales; maybe more so.  Pull the plug on the data center and see what happens.  (Been there done that, by accident of course...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been the wearer of many hats in both public and private IT organizations .
I have been known to term IT efforts to IT managers ( who are often there as non-technical sorts ) that the effort is seen as a " Necessary Evil " IT costs money ; equipment , software , employees , benefits , etc .
The real benefits of the effort are often taken for granted and not seen ( that is if you are doing it right ) .
The fact is that business can not survive or compete without some type of reliance on IT in its many forms .
For management to continue to deny that IT exists and requires resources is irresponsible .
IT is as essential as paying the bills , marketing , and sales ; maybe more so .
Pull the plug on the data center and see what happens .
( Been there done that , by accident of course... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been the wearer of many hats in both public and private IT organizations.
I have been known to term IT efforts to IT managers (who are often there as non-technical sorts) that the effort is seen as a "Necessary Evil"  IT costs money; equipment, software, employees, benefits, etc.
The real benefits of the effort are often taken for granted and not seen (that is if you are doing it right).
The fact is that business cannot survive or compete without some type of reliance on IT in its many forms.
For management to continue to deny that IT exists and requires resources is irresponsible.
IT is as essential as paying the bills, marketing, and sales; maybe more so.
Pull the plug on the data center and see what happens.
(Been there done that, by accident of course...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30845884</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1264089540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes - this is a really important point. The article seems to imply that IT as a business is paid by the hour for whatever services are worth, but don't get to take some of the credit for the efficiencies that their solutions enable the business to do. If you account for services that way, you'll definitely end up with an outsourced help desk and world of pain. Your concept is key - IT has to be able to book some of the profits associated with their solutions in order to have their balance sheet make sense to an accountant. Well said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes - this is a really important point .
The article seems to imply that IT as a business is paid by the hour for whatever services are worth , but do n't get to take some of the credit for the efficiencies that their solutions enable the business to do .
If you account for services that way , you 'll definitely end up with an outsourced help desk and world of pain .
Your concept is key - IT has to be able to book some of the profits associated with their solutions in order to have their balance sheet make sense to an accountant .
Well said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes - this is a really important point.
The article seems to imply that IT as a business is paid by the hour for whatever services are worth, but don't get to take some of the credit for the efficiencies that their solutions enable the business to do.
If you account for services that way, you'll definitely end up with an outsourced help desk and world of pain.
Your concept is key - IT has to be able to book some of the profits associated with their solutions in order to have their balance sheet make sense to an accountant.
Well said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825428</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>omfglearntoplay</author>
	<datestamp>1263899700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple solution, I find. Make sure you have a few projects that directly affects the head of accounting. They quickly realize just how great IT is, because it should always allow them to operate their department with less people. The only problem may be when IT works under accounting, but if that's the case, you better either be buddies with the head of accounting or move on to a better developed internal structure. I'm not saying you can't work for a small business, I'm just saying being a sub-dept to accounting is asking for trouble. But being somebody else's "burden" and making yourself invaluable to accounting somehow works. At least that's what I've seen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple solution , I find .
Make sure you have a few projects that directly affects the head of accounting .
They quickly realize just how great IT is , because it should always allow them to operate their department with less people .
The only problem may be when IT works under accounting , but if that 's the case , you better either be buddies with the head of accounting or move on to a better developed internal structure .
I 'm not saying you ca n't work for a small business , I 'm just saying being a sub-dept to accounting is asking for trouble .
But being somebody else 's " burden " and making yourself invaluable to accounting somehow works .
At least that 's what I 've seen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple solution, I find.
Make sure you have a few projects that directly affects the head of accounting.
They quickly realize just how great IT is, because it should always allow them to operate their department with less people.
The only problem may be when IT works under accounting, but if that's the case, you better either be buddies with the head of accounting or move on to a better developed internal structure.
I'm not saying you can't work for a small business, I'm just saying being a sub-dept to accounting is asking for trouble.
But being somebody else's "burden" and making yourself invaluable to accounting somehow works.
At least that's what I've seen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825004</id>
	<title>Depends on how you run your business...</title>
	<author>fljmayer</author>
	<datestamp>1263897960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the things he complains about would be bad practices for any business. How can a business keep customers at arm's length and expect to have a good relationship with them? How can a business let its customers completely dictate how they do their work? If you run a business, you are responsible for keeping it sustainable, and sometimes that means you have to say no to your customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the things he complains about would be bad practices for any business .
How can a business keep customers at arm 's length and expect to have a good relationship with them ?
How can a business let its customers completely dictate how they do their work ?
If you run a business , you are responsible for keeping it sustainable , and sometimes that means you have to say no to your customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the things he complains about would be bad practices for any business.
How can a business keep customers at arm's length and expect to have a good relationship with them?
How can a business let its customers completely dictate how they do their work?
If you run a business, you are responsible for keeping it sustainable, and sometimes that means you have to say no to your customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826824</id>
	<title>Why "Running IT As a Business" Is a Good Idea</title>
	<author>MrBrainport</author>
	<datestamp>1263907620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For specific, product-related information, please go to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/</a> [microsoft.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>For specific , product-related information , please go to http : //www.microsoft.com/ [ microsoft.com ] ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For specific, product-related information, please go to http://www.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30919298</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a cop-out for bad customer service</title>
	<author>Lodragandraoidh</author>
	<datestamp>1264615260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>elrouse0 -- Your description is EXACTLY how IT works now where I work.</p><p>Their projects are defined by:</p><p>Will not do 'small' projects that do not bring in 'revenue' (even though we are all on the same team).<br>Relies on a pure 'waterfall' lifecycle model - highlighted by 'big design up front', little flexibility to change in mid stream as the business changes, and 'deliverables' that they turn over to the 'production' team and walk away from.<br>Changes require the whole process to be started all over - and no one from the original development team is assigned to do the modification work - so the changes take forever, cost too much, and are largely irrelevant when the window of opportunity they were meant to address is lost when the 'deliverable' is released to the users.</p><p>I read the article, and I don't think that is his message.  He is saying to remove the 'project' mentality (where you deliver and walk away) and instead peer with the people you are providing services to to really get behind what they *really* need (not what they think they want without knowledge of what is possible with current technology) - and then go about providing that *over the long term*.</p><p>Short term thinking leads to:<br>Software as a 'product' with a finite 'deliverable' that is then walked away from (onto the next project).<br>Short term cost 'savings' that really end up costing more in the long run (out sourcing).<br>IT as a revenue generating entity that has to 'make a profit' by acquiring more 'projects' and headcount.</p><p>Long term thinking would provide:<br>Software as an iterative 'entity' that is constantly changing to meet the needs of the business.<br>Long term cost savings by investing the right amount *now* to get the correct tools and services into the hands of your employees to make them *most* efficient early rather than late (so they can take advantage of limited windows of opportunity).<br>IT as a distributed part of the organization with deep knowledge of the systems they iteratively manage.</p><p>Having been the recipient of IT's 'customer service' for many years - and having seen organizations large and small within the company set up their own ad-hoc development teams under the guise of 'operations' to supply what IT won't, I can identify directly with what the author is saying in the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>elrouse0 -- Your description is EXACTLY how IT works now where I work.Their projects are defined by : Will not do 'small ' projects that do not bring in 'revenue ' ( even though we are all on the same team ) .Relies on a pure 'waterfall ' lifecycle model - highlighted by 'big design up front ' , little flexibility to change in mid stream as the business changes , and 'deliverables ' that they turn over to the 'production ' team and walk away from.Changes require the whole process to be started all over - and no one from the original development team is assigned to do the modification work - so the changes take forever , cost too much , and are largely irrelevant when the window of opportunity they were meant to address is lost when the 'deliverable ' is released to the users.I read the article , and I do n't think that is his message .
He is saying to remove the 'project ' mentality ( where you deliver and walk away ) and instead peer with the people you are providing services to to really get behind what they * really * need ( not what they think they want without knowledge of what is possible with current technology ) - and then go about providing that * over the long term * .Short term thinking leads to : Software as a 'product ' with a finite 'deliverable ' that is then walked away from ( onto the next project ) .Short term cost 'savings ' that really end up costing more in the long run ( out sourcing ) .IT as a revenue generating entity that has to 'make a profit ' by acquiring more 'projects ' and headcount.Long term thinking would provide : Software as an iterative 'entity ' that is constantly changing to meet the needs of the business.Long term cost savings by investing the right amount * now * to get the correct tools and services into the hands of your employees to make them * most * efficient early rather than late ( so they can take advantage of limited windows of opportunity ) .IT as a distributed part of the organization with deep knowledge of the systems they iteratively manage.Having been the recipient of IT 's 'customer service ' for many years - and having seen organizations large and small within the company set up their own ad-hoc development teams under the guise of 'operations ' to supply what IT wo n't , I can identify directly with what the author is saying in the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>elrouse0 -- Your description is EXACTLY how IT works now where I work.Their projects are defined by:Will not do 'small' projects that do not bring in 'revenue' (even though we are all on the same team).Relies on a pure 'waterfall' lifecycle model - highlighted by 'big design up front', little flexibility to change in mid stream as the business changes, and 'deliverables' that they turn over to the 'production' team and walk away from.Changes require the whole process to be started all over - and no one from the original development team is assigned to do the modification work - so the changes take forever, cost too much, and are largely irrelevant when the window of opportunity they were meant to address is lost when the 'deliverable' is released to the users.I read the article, and I don't think that is his message.
He is saying to remove the 'project' mentality (where you deliver and walk away) and instead peer with the people you are providing services to to really get behind what they *really* need (not what they think they want without knowledge of what is possible with current technology) - and then go about providing that *over the long term*.Short term thinking leads to:Software as a 'product' with a finite 'deliverable' that is then walked away from (onto the next project).Short term cost 'savings' that really end up costing more in the long run (out sourcing).IT as a revenue generating entity that has to 'make a profit' by acquiring more 'projects' and headcount.Long term thinking would provide:Software as an iterative 'entity' that is constantly changing to meet the needs of the business.Long term cost savings by investing the right amount *now* to get the correct tools and services into the hands of your employees to make them *most* efficient early rather than late (so they can take advantage of limited windows of opportunity).IT as a distributed part of the organization with deep knowledge of the systems they iteratively manage.Having been the recipient of IT's 'customer service' for many years - and having seen organizations large and small within the company set up their own ad-hoc development teams under the guise of 'operations' to supply what IT won't, I can identify directly with what the author is saying in the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826222</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1263903420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you hit the nail on the head. From my experience, it's like this:<br>
&nbsp; <br>Sales start to pick up, so you hire a few more salesmen/account executives. Then because of the sales, customer service calls go up, so you hire some more CS reps. Then, after a year or two, sales decline. You let go some of the people you hired. <br>
&nbsp; <br>With IT, you can't do this. There is no metric for "how much" IT is needed. IT isn't a job that's either "done" or "not done". It's not a "average time on hold" sort of position. <br>
&nbsp; <br>The amount of time it takes to resolve problems can be nebulous. The quality of your backup software, and the ability of IT to back up and restore isn't anywhere NEAR as quantifiable as "average time on hold" in Customer Service is. Your account executives have 20 major accounts each. That's a solid, set-in-stone fact. If you get 40 more major accounts, you need two more of those people.<br>
&nbsp; <br>It's so easy for a manager to look at IT and say, "I bet we can do that with less", because little IT doesn't tie directly into the "business", at least from a managerial standpoint. IT doesn't quantify well, because sales $ are sales $, time-on-hold is time-on-hold is, and the number of accounts are the number of accounts. Managers just can't quantify IT like that. So to them, it doesn't have a set-in-stone value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you hit the nail on the head .
From my experience , it 's like this :   Sales start to pick up , so you hire a few more salesmen/account executives .
Then because of the sales , customer service calls go up , so you hire some more CS reps. Then , after a year or two , sales decline .
You let go some of the people you hired .
  With IT , you ca n't do this .
There is no metric for " how much " IT is needed .
IT is n't a job that 's either " done " or " not done " .
It 's not a " average time on hold " sort of position .
  The amount of time it takes to resolve problems can be nebulous .
The quality of your backup software , and the ability of IT to back up and restore is n't anywhere NEAR as quantifiable as " average time on hold " in Customer Service is .
Your account executives have 20 major accounts each .
That 's a solid , set-in-stone fact .
If you get 40 more major accounts , you need two more of those people .
  It 's so easy for a manager to look at IT and say , " I bet we can do that with less " , because little IT does n't tie directly into the " business " , at least from a managerial standpoint .
IT does n't quantify well , because sales $ are sales $ , time-on-hold is time-on-hold is , and the number of accounts are the number of accounts .
Managers just ca n't quantify IT like that .
So to them , it does n't have a set-in-stone value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you hit the nail on the head.
From my experience, it's like this:
  Sales start to pick up, so you hire a few more salesmen/account executives.
Then because of the sales, customer service calls go up, so you hire some more CS reps. Then, after a year or two, sales decline.
You let go some of the people you hired.
  With IT, you can't do this.
There is no metric for "how much" IT is needed.
IT isn't a job that's either "done" or "not done".
It's not a "average time on hold" sort of position.
  The amount of time it takes to resolve problems can be nebulous.
The quality of your backup software, and the ability of IT to back up and restore isn't anywhere NEAR as quantifiable as "average time on hold" in Customer Service is.
Your account executives have 20 major accounts each.
That's a solid, set-in-stone fact.
If you get 40 more major accounts, you need two more of those people.
  It's so easy for a manager to look at IT and say, "I bet we can do that with less", because little IT doesn't tie directly into the "business", at least from a managerial standpoint.
IT doesn't quantify well, because sales $ are sales $, time-on-hold is time-on-hold is, and the number of accounts are the number of accounts.
Managers just can't quantify IT like that.
So to them, it doesn't have a set-in-stone value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30840140</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>rmm4pi8</author>
	<datestamp>1263992340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're building those tools, right now.  Puppet for configuration management, func for scalable scripting, capistrano for deployments, RANCID for switch configs, Splunk for log slurping.  This is what the Visible Ops and/or Infrastructure as Code movement is up to.  We even have a conference:  O'Reilly Velocity.  Adam Jacob, the creator of chef, likes to say "if it doesn't have an API, then it doesn't exist."</p><p>I totally agree with you about the problem, but devtools didn't exist until developers got tired of assembly and/or Notepad and built them.  Automated infrastructure tools, allowing us to focus on design and business requirements rather than logging into 100 boxes to do this and that all day long, are just now coming into being.  Because those of use who would rather design than firefight are building them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're building those tools , right now .
Puppet for configuration management , func for scalable scripting , capistrano for deployments , RANCID for switch configs , Splunk for log slurping .
This is what the Visible Ops and/or Infrastructure as Code movement is up to .
We even have a conference : O'Reilly Velocity .
Adam Jacob , the creator of chef , likes to say " if it does n't have an API , then it does n't exist .
" I totally agree with you about the problem , but devtools did n't exist until developers got tired of assembly and/or Notepad and built them .
Automated infrastructure tools , allowing us to focus on design and business requirements rather than logging into 100 boxes to do this and that all day long , are just now coming into being .
Because those of use who would rather design than firefight are building them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're building those tools, right now.
Puppet for configuration management, func for scalable scripting, capistrano for deployments, RANCID for switch configs, Splunk for log slurping.
This is what the Visible Ops and/or Infrastructure as Code movement is up to.
We even have a conference:  O'Reilly Velocity.
Adam Jacob, the creator of chef, likes to say "if it doesn't have an API, then it doesn't exist.
"I totally agree with you about the problem, but devtools didn't exist until developers got tired of assembly and/or Notepad and built them.
Automated infrastructure tools, allowing us to focus on design and business requirements rather than logging into 100 boxes to do this and that all day long, are just now coming into being.
Because those of use who would rather design than firefight are building them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827286</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>jelizondo</author>
	<datestamp>1263911280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So long as you "get to fuck yourself" during working hours, it's quite allright.</p><p>Now, if you have to "get to fuck yourself"on your own time, then it's time to get another job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as you " get to fuck yourself " during working hours , it 's quite allright.Now , if you have to " get to fuck yourself " on your own time , then it 's time to get another job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as you "get to fuck yourself" during working hours, it's quite allright.Now, if you have to "get to fuck yourself"on your own time, then it's time to get another job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594</id>
	<title>Re:My perspective after 20 years</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1263900360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand what you are saying, and even agree for the most part, but:</p><p>Technology changes constantly. One of the important jobs of the IT department, and one that tends to annoy the people that pay the bills, is to keep the IT infrastructure from becoming so obsolete that it becomes unmaintainable.</p><p>Trust me, the IT department doesn't like upgrading stuff any more than you do. But you HAVE to keep things modernized. Would the company rather save $40k now, or have to spend $150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products? Not everything needs to be upgraded all the time, but there is a lot to be said for staying no more than 2 versions behind on anything.</p><p>That's the biggest issue in IT, I think. Keeping yourself from getting trapped by old equipment/software. It's a treadmill, yeah, but you are either running or falling off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand what you are saying , and even agree for the most part , but : Technology changes constantly .
One of the important jobs of the IT department , and one that tends to annoy the people that pay the bills , is to keep the IT infrastructure from becoming so obsolete that it becomes unmaintainable.Trust me , the IT department does n't like upgrading stuff any more than you do .
But you HAVE to keep things modernized .
Would the company rather save $ 40k now , or have to spend $ 150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products ?
Not everything needs to be upgraded all the time , but there is a lot to be said for staying no more than 2 versions behind on anything.That 's the biggest issue in IT , I think .
Keeping yourself from getting trapped by old equipment/software .
It 's a treadmill , yeah , but you are either running or falling off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand what you are saying, and even agree for the most part, but:Technology changes constantly.
One of the important jobs of the IT department, and one that tends to annoy the people that pay the bills, is to keep the IT infrastructure from becoming so obsolete that it becomes unmaintainable.Trust me, the IT department doesn't like upgrading stuff any more than you do.
But you HAVE to keep things modernized.
Would the company rather save $40k now, or have to spend $150k in 10 years to have all of their discontinued/unsupported/proprietary software and data migrated to new products?
Not everything needs to be upgraded all the time, but there is a lot to be said for staying no more than 2 versions behind on anything.That's the biggest issue in IT, I think.
Keeping yourself from getting trapped by old equipment/software.
It's a treadmill, yeah, but you are either running or falling off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828590</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You obviously don't work in IT Security. It's not about ROI it's about reducing Lost Expectancy of both tangibles and intangibles.
<br> <br>
Risk = (Likelihood of Vulnerability * Value of Asset) - (\% of risk mitigated by controls) + Uncertainty of current knowledge<br>
Annual Loss Expectancy = (Asset Value * Exposure Factor) * (Annual Rate of Occurance \%)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously do n't work in IT Security .
It 's not about ROI it 's about reducing Lost Expectancy of both tangibles and intangibles .
Risk = ( Likelihood of Vulnerability * Value of Asset ) - ( \ % of risk mitigated by controls ) + Uncertainty of current knowledge Annual Loss Expectancy = ( Asset Value * Exposure Factor ) * ( Annual Rate of Occurance \ % )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously don't work in IT Security.
It's not about ROI it's about reducing Lost Expectancy of both tangibles and intangibles.
Risk = (Likelihood of Vulnerability * Value of Asset) - (\% of risk mitigated by controls) + Uncertainty of current knowledge
Annual Loss Expectancy = (Asset Value * Exposure Factor) * (Annual Rate of Occurance \%)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916</id>
	<title>IT-as-a-business also positions it as antagonism</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1263897660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ideally, as someone who isn't in IT but uses technology, I like to think the IT guys are on my side. If something is broken, and I can't fix it myself, or something could be better and I can't improve it (due to lack of knowledge or resources or access), they're there to help me out. Setting up IT "as a business" fundamentally changes this way of thinking about things, though. My group then sees IT as a cost center: we want to use as little of their stuff as possible, or we might get billed for them doing stuff for us. IT sees us as customers to whom a bunch of crap can potentially be sold, generating revenue for their IT business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , as someone who is n't in IT but uses technology , I like to think the IT guys are on my side .
If something is broken , and I ca n't fix it myself , or something could be better and I ca n't improve it ( due to lack of knowledge or resources or access ) , they 're there to help me out .
Setting up IT " as a business " fundamentally changes this way of thinking about things , though .
My group then sees IT as a cost center : we want to use as little of their stuff as possible , or we might get billed for them doing stuff for us .
IT sees us as customers to whom a bunch of crap can potentially be sold , generating revenue for their IT business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, as someone who isn't in IT but uses technology, I like to think the IT guys are on my side.
If something is broken, and I can't fix it myself, or something could be better and I can't improve it (due to lack of knowledge or resources or access), they're there to help me out.
Setting up IT "as a business" fundamentally changes this way of thinking about things, though.
My group then sees IT as a cost center: we want to use as little of their stuff as possible, or we might get billed for them doing stuff for us.
IT sees us as customers to whom a bunch of crap can potentially be sold, generating revenue for their IT business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30845884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30919298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30840140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30836310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2029259_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30836310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30919298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30840140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824632
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30832570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826890
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827844
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828676
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826964
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831424
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827286
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30845884
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827984
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827306
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841300
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828590
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828298
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30831394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30830974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30829576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2029259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30824740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30825840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30841210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30828252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30826788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30827562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2029259.30833642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
