This article angered me for several reasons.  To imply that IT has gone too far with process standardization is wholly inaccurate IMHO.  To write the article with zero actionable take aways is very annoying.  To do all of the above based on conjecture is irresponsible.  

I often take issue with the IT press’ assumptions regarding the current state of  IT management. But this is beyond issue for me.  This kind of thinking does nothing to foster the type of intentional system design that is so desperately needed in today’s IT organizations.

The symptom of one size fits all process adtopion is just that, a symptom of poor management.  To suggest that the solution for poor management is somehow to fuzzy the lines around process and end the mellow harshing, creativity killing approach of process standardization is just hollow.

Building effective high performing systems is focused 100% on achieving company goals and if that means different approaches for different regions so be it.  Why is this so hard to see?  

Besides is this really a conversation you could imagine having with your CEO?

I just pinged Steven Spear about this and want to write a response that draws attention to the pressing issues facing IT, based on over 10 years of research and empirical data.  

/end rant

kevinbehr/rant

So this innocent question at Slashdot received so many completely ridiculous responses I simply HAD to say something for the record.

IMHO any IT organization that puts an IT worker in the line of fire like this just flat out SUCKS.  

It is Managements job to understand the goals of the company it works for.  Then it is Managements job to design and build a system that helps accomplish those goals.

To paraphrase Goldratt “Technology CAN (not will but can) only provide value if it diminishes or removes business constraints (See Must Read books and buy “The Goal” and “Beyond the Goal” from link to the right). 

I love these definitions of System from Merriam Webster

•  an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole 
• an organized or established procedure 
• a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing<a taxonomic system> <the decimal system>4: harmonious arrangement or pattern : order

It is incumbent on IT management to create a system which includes a general flow or direction of work, a clear relationship between the goals of the system and how the system will achieve those goals, detailed specification of the roles of the workers, precisely detailed specification of the work to be performed by the workers (bearing in mind the implicit assumptions inside of each task that the level of specification must provide deterministic proof of as output of the task - such as a.) whether the worker is capable of the task and b.) whether the task will deliver the value expected), and an adequate system of controls to help management determine if the system as whole or in part is working as expected.

If you are complaining about having to document steps or tasks so some “less experienced or lower pay grade worker” can do the work I would bet a signed dollar you are in a low performing system that consists of little beyond intentions to arrive at a destination. But contains  zero actual instructions s on how to get there (where “there” even is), milestones along the way and constant interuptions by a cast of dozens to take different trips to unknown other destinations..in other words, IT hell.

Btw it is the cause of this very symptom that brings entire IT orgs, and the businesses that depend so dearly on them, to their collective knees.  

/end rant