back to article We asked you how your biz introduces new IT systems – and here are the results

Our recent survey into how we go about introducing new systems threw up a set of responses that were positively multifarious. Who’d have thought that there could be so many approaches to putting new stuff in? Thank-you to everyone who participated. Now let's take a gander at the results. Question 1: Who makes the suggestion …

  1. A____B

    More. Than. Ten. Steps.

    Not surprised !

    Back in the 90s, our company was looking at a major hardware vendor for a new project with multiple servers and hundreds of desktops.

    The vendor loaned us a new, not yet released, server on the promise of an order. This was (in it's day) a serious piece of kit; with today's software bloat, it might just manage MS Word.

    By the time the purchase process was completed and the order went out, the server was an end-of-life item and no longer sold.

    And that was for a new, 'prestige' project which was supposed to be without baggage.

    I wonder if they've approved that Office 97 purchase yet? :-)

  2. EarthDog

    THis can be dangerous.

    From the article: *nearly half (44.6 per cent) of the direction came from the IT world: after all, they’re the ones who know technology best and, more relevantly, they know what tech (and therefore what products) are there to be bought*

    Knowing the technology does not grant anyone special knowledge of the business ant The role of tech is to support the business. To do that they must understand it but in my experience companies love silos. Asking techies to understand a business is often much to ask for. The people to ask are the grunts doing the day-to-day work and their immediate supervisors, with some input from upper management for long term direction. But an attitude of "IT knows best" shouldn't be reinforced.

    1. DJV Silver badge

      Re: THis can be dangerous.


      One place I worked at had (for a while) a policy of IT bods shadowing non-IT bods for a short period to see how the non-IT areas worked. Often the benefit was two-way - IT bods understanding how other areas worked and what issues they contended with + being able to suggest improvements (that's PROPER useful improvements as opposed to top-level-management imposed ones) where appropriate.

      Later on that policy seemed to slip when changes at the top occurred and I buggered off about a year later after seeing the general downward march into stupidity resulting from said top management changes.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: THis can be dangerous.

      It depends in my opinion.

      A good IT consultant is one that crawls out of the basement and spends time understanding the business.

      It doesn't matter if you're hot shit at setting things up if you can't put a proposal together and present it. I think that is widely understood.

    3. Stuart Castle Silver badge

      Re: THis can be dangerous.

      Re: Knowing the technology does not grant anyone special knowledge of the business ant The role of tech is to support the business

      Where I work, we try and strike a balance, with the department needing the system and techies working together, sometimes with outside consultants, to complete the contract.

      There is a good reason for this. A few years ago, a department manager was looking for small laptops for her staff. She saw PCs at around the £700 mark, and Chromebooks at around half that. She ordered 20 Chromebooks for her department, and when it was pointed out we are primarily a Microsoft shop, so don't support Chromebooks, she asked us to install Windows on them.

      Not sure what happened to the Chromebooks, but our IT director created a rule that any purchases of IT have to be vetted by us, even if they are coming out of individual department budgets.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not sure what the point of this poll is.

    Companies with more money than sense will continue to waste vast sums of the stuff providing solutions to problems that don't exist, in spite of requirements that actually do.

    Mainly because they don't undertake proper requirements analysis.*

    *Past performance is highly indicative of future action (measured in years).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not sure what the point of this poll is.

      The money isn't really wasted though when it's tax deductable and been fudged on to the balance sheet as a fixed asset then later written off and sold at loss (with the loss carried into tax deduction too).

      IT is actually a very efficient way for beancounters to balance things out. Which is why beancounters should be best mates with the techies rather than their natural enemy.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not sure what the point of this poll is.

        I believe you need to consult the BOFH on that! Having been in a number of businesses where IT unfortunately reported to the Accountants, This is the worst of all worlds, particularly if the bean-counters get bonuses for expenses cut in the IT area.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon