Is your boss working to outsource his own job?

Posted by Ian Holsman Tue, 07 Feb 2006 13:16:00 GMT

All too often we hear about IT being a cost center, and how our IT should be cheaper.

They point at google, or try to benchmark themselves against ‘best practices’ and try to emulate them.

In my experience what this usually end up as is: do your existing job, but faster or cheaper.

So.. how do people in the trenches normally respond?

They try their hardest to do it.

what normally results is:

  • policies which people enforce blindly
  • bug queues
  • deployment meetings

managers are happy, they have measurements, they have KPI’s, they have charts. and if they do their job properly they are running cheaper than before… everyone’s happy..

but not the end users, while they don’t have any metrics or charts to proove this.. they feel that their level of service has decreased and become lower value than before… but they don’t complain as the metrics show otherwise.. IT has become more efficent.

so.. it comes budget time, and the bean counters say I just read in the latest magazine that Textdrive/google/whoever has a widget-to-dongle ratio of 50, and ours is only 30..

how can we compete with a widget-to-dongle ratio of 30? no wonder we are losing money/not earning 80% ROIC etc. etc.

so the manager gets his metric targets and the cycle continues.

and after 1-2 years an IT operation centre with better than average efficency ratings.. BUT

You have also made yourself a perfect target for being outsourced. you have delegated all your customer interactions to a web page

If they are lucky a phone call from a admin they have never seen before asking them about bug #12321 they raised 2 months ago, and if they still want to do it, as it was using widget 2.0 while the standard is now widget 3.7.

but the bean counters are looking at a job-shop outsourced from india/cyprus/china which have a widget-to-dongle ratio of 70… more than double their IT internal ratio.. and it’s not like anyone ‘likes’ dealing with our internal IT shop anyway..

(sound familiar?)

so.. as a IT manager it is your job not to let this happen. don’t forget the human aspect of IT operations, while joe down in marketing has the intellectual capacity to fill in a bug-form, and might even know what version of widget he is running.. don’t make him remember it.. call him, talk to him and let your staff fill in the bug form, not the end-user.

Make the first point of interaction a semi-friendly voice. Work on your branding.. make the first word that people think of when they hear ‘IT’ is helpful. make your IT people know the language/processes that they are inovlved in. why do marketing need the widget in the first place?

So when the outsourcing company rings your exec and says we have a widget-to-dongle ratio double what your currently getting he will brush them off as they couldn’t possibly have the value that internal IT brings.

So to summarize.. differentiate yourselves from the job-shops.. immerse yourselves inside the business units so that you are one of them. Go the ‘high value/high cost’ route, not the ‘low value/low cost’ one, and you might still have a job in 2 years time.

Posted in  | Tags ,  | no comments | no trackbacks

Open Source 2.0

Posted by Ian Holsman Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:36:00 GMT

With the current trend of companies releasing the products for free and calling them ‘open source’ I think it time that we start differentiating what exactly the different type of open sources offerings there are.

I see 2 different types:

  • open source 1.0
  • and
  • open source 2.0

The difference is who participates in the development of it, and how many different companies make up the development community.

The easiest way to determine this is to ask what if a single Company ‘X’ went out of business (bought out, chapter 11, etc), and the people being paid by them stopped working on the project, what would happen?

For open source 1.0, the answer is usually something along the lines of: it’ll hurt, but we’ll survive.

With some of the new ‘open source’ companies announced over the last 2 years, the answer would be closure.

Sure the source is open, but it would be like getting shot in the chest.. Only a few like Vista get reincarnated into a ‘open source 1.0’ project.

My fear, is that the open source brand and what it stands for is getting muddied and corrupted as more ‘2.0’ products get released out into the wild, and think that the open source 1.0 should rebrand them selves with another moniker now so as the user base can easily differentiate between a sustainable project with multiple suppliers available to service their needs, and a one supplier model where they are dependant on the whims of a single entity.

And if you are a 2.0 CEO reading this, my message to you is set your product free.

Open up the decision making in your project. Foster multiple companies to support your product, make it so that your company is not the centre of the products universe. By doing this you will get innovation and stability in your offering, and you will grow the pie , similar to how you get VC funding instead of just using your own cash. It will take your product (and you) onto the next level (ubiquity).

Posted in  | Tags , ,  | 1 comment | no trackbacks