Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macs Landing on Corporate Desks, Led by iPhones and iPads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is why the "technical people" have a job. The users do not exist to make your life pleasant. You exist to make the "next thing" work. Deal with that or find another profession.
First - there's more to someones existence.
Second - in defense of IT people - The users don't exist to make life UNpleasant either.
And at the end of the day - there are situations which simply cannot be solved or can't be solved in a practical matter. Sometimes the work arounds are more complicated than doing without.
Your "deal with that or find another profession" is pretty obnoxious. I get your point. And your message might be valid - your delivery was rather harsh.
Unless it's the boss telling you what to do, what users "want" can be ignored. It's not the IT department's job to accede to the receptionist who wants to use their iPhone.
It's give or take in IT. Sometimes, it's not even a matter of technical "can-do", but corporate policies in place for information privacy, secrecy and security. Some devices/software just cannot be made to comply with the policies sometimes and users need to understand that's out of IT's hands.
----------
Even if it's "the boss", if it's not "the top boss", then HR has the final word on acceptable corporate policy and Acquisitions will say if budget can be alloted to the project or not and "his boss" will tell you whether the production gains for "the boss" are worth the spending that will be required to implement the solution.
I've done a lot of IT procurement over the years. If either myself when purchasing, or someone coming to me for approval, stated a benefit for buying a Mac over a PC was that it would make the employee more valued, they'd get laughed out of the door. I'd ask them to justify the extra initial cost, plus the cost of running non-standard hardware in a corporate environment, against the already known cost of issuing standard hardware.
Over the years I can only recall a handful of times when an employee has requested a Mac, and with one exception they have never been able to justify it. The one exception was for a CFO who held the purse strings anyway.
There is always the 'suicide mission' (as I like to call it) where more responsibility is placed on the shoulders of the end user to take care of their computer thus the size of the IT budget can remain static or shrink as the demand for its frontline services decrease. I've used the line a few times and it actually works - for me I might not be the 'friend' of my fellow IT staff but one thing one has to realise is sooner or later with the mounting cost of IT in many businesses there will be a day of reckoning - making decisions that simply further your job security will eventually come back to bite you in the backside.
I would think that would be pretty easy.
"I'm slightly more productive when using tools which with I am more familiar. I make $30,000 (or $40,000 or $50,000 or whatever) per year. Even a marginal increase in my productivity would be far more valuable to this company than the costs of purchasing and maintaing the hardware. Get your head out of that box, IT monkey."
I've been in IT for 20 years, and everything you said is subjective, and opinion. It wreaks of "Job Security". Consumerization of IT is here, and will grow stronger. Opinions like yours are those of the old Mainframe guys...
Over time VDI, and similar will negate any client platform specific need. Granted it's in the infant stages, but it's growing rapidly. Even Microsoft sees it, and is changing their way of business...
With over 10,000 employees, my organization NEVER calls out onsite repair services from a vendor! PCs are commodities. When your toaster or desk phone breaks, you swap it out for a new one. Same thing with PCs - it just doesn't make financial sense to pay $100 an hour plus parts to repair a $300 PC.
As far as Macs go, I have owned at least 8, and have never needed a repair on any of them. Pretty much the same with PCs. The hardware just doesn't "break" that often.
Novell recently announced Kanaka, which better integrates Macs into an Open Enterprise Server environment. This should help boost Mac use in businesses.
Why do you assume a user should have to justify a Mac over a PC. Why shouldn't IT justify why they insist on giving users PCs over Macs? And you can't use the argument that "all our software runs on PCs" - I'm talking about reasons why an entire PC ecosystem is better than a Mac-based operation.
The fact that you would laugh them out the door is a perfect example of how PC IT people just don't "get" it. You may not realize it, but employee productivity is closely tied to morale. Also, the corporate image is very important in attracting top-level talent. Modern, forward-looking companies that use Macs send a message to current and prospective employees that they value innovation. Yes, you, as an IT person, can't fathom how the Mac is worth more based solely on your perception of the technical capabilities and administration costs. But you don't see the big picture.
I'd like to see you try that. Just the last 2 words would probably get you fired for harassement in the workplace.
But really, "marginal" increase in your productivity is meaningless if the costs the company are higher than your increase in productivity is bringing in. You'll thus have to quantify that increase in productivity somewhat to show that the added TCO will bring in a actual benefit to the company to offset the added TCO.
Going with "unsupported" and "uncertified" solutions usually also results in a certain drop in productivity for you, especially if you're left to deal with your own setup and problems, which is time you're not spending on your work. You'll have to figure out these values also and quantify them to show that the added productivity not only offsets the TCO but also these added responsibilities you'll have.
Run that through acquisitions and HR, along with your solution. If they say yes, I doubt the "IT monkey" would care. This is not about IT at all and your insults towards that group are quite unwarranted and based in ignorance of the whole management side of the corporate IT infrastructure.
I work in IT. If I hire you to make what the boss wants "go", then you make it go. Reality is harsh. I never said the users exist to make life unpleasant, I said IT personnel are hired for a reason. Far too many IT personnel are more than happy to push their idea of a solution out to users, but not accept the business direction because they disagree. Disagreements are fine with a sound reason, but in the end, the business makes the decision, not the IT employee.
Hum... because IT is just going with corporate policy. If you have a problem, take it up with HR and acquisitions. We don't even get decide on our vendors, it's all done through bidding processes. Apple or other Mac centric vendors are quite free to bid for conracts when client workstation contract renewals are up, and as long as they fit in the requirements for the bid offer, they will be considered.
I sincerely doubt these users are switching to Apple devices without approval by the boss. Do you? IT doesn't, or at least shouldn't, take direction from individual users, but must concede when a business decision is made. I've had to bite my tongue and implement things that I felt were a bad idea. However, I made my recommendation against it and moved on when it was denied. Sometimes I was right, sometimes I was wrong. But, in the end, I am here to perform a function for the company.
IT installs what was acquired after a bidding process with strict requirements based on a customer needs analysis. If your IT works any other way, it's flawed.
Customer comes in with a problem to solve. Requirements are drafted for the solution. Bids are opened up for software/hardware acquisitions based on these requirements (and are quite vendor agnostic).
If the "requirement" is "Mac", then by god, that will be on the requirement sheet. But at the end of the day, "Mac" is hardly a requirement, it's not a "need", it's a "want".
I'm the first one that "wants" a Mac as my corporate desktop. I'm also the first to realise that it's hardly a "need".
----------
I do. I bring in my Mac clandestinely.
It's not a question of better per se. It's a question of what technology the company has invested in. If 90-100 percent of your enterprise is on one platform - and/or running legacy systems - it's simple math - it's way too expensive (most of the time) to switch. IT doesn't have to justify giving PCs over Macs because right now - in Enterprise - PCs are the status quo. Justification is needed to change the status quo - not to maintain it.
As I said originally, if the business decides to move towards Apple, and IT is tasked with making it "go", IT will make it go. There are solutions to better integrate these devices into the environment. IT can make a case against the move, but it is a business decision to pay the price for the switch.
If it's "my boss" I'm going to start implementing and integrating what I am assigned. I'll tell him the pros and cons, but once he's made that decision, my only recourse is to either go over his head or do what I'm told. You make this sound as if some rogue employees are trying to force this on the company. While it does happen, we usually deal with those cases fairly swiftly. Your manager telling you the company decided to move in a new direction and you need to implement a solution is not the same thing.
----------
How is that different from what I said? Also, you don't determine the need, the business determines the need.
Good for you. If you bring your Mac clandestinely on my network, you won't stay connected for very long.
What makes you think IT makes a case against moves ? We certainly don't. Again, bidding process, requirements from customer need analysis, etc.. etc..
If we're at the "implementation and planning" phase, it's quite too late to make a case against it. That is to be done during the bidding process, and all the requirement justifications to displace a bid need to be based on requirements the bid fails to meet.
No, if my boss comes up to me and asks me to do something that's outside of corporate policy, I'll tell him it is and that it's probably not going to be possible.
If he insists, I'll go through change control with all the documentation on the change he wants me to implement, as is the proper procedure for a deployment and I'll have them tell him no instead. If he still doesn't get it, then I can tell him I tried and that it's out of my hands and needs to go higher up himself to get his change approved.
All I've wasted in about 60 minutes of my time documenting the change and submitting it for approval.
----------
Sure, but businesses are brighter than "I want a Mac! it's a need!". Businesses don't want OSes nor participate in OS wars. They have tasks to perform and requirements are based on those tasks needed to be accomplished.
And at the end of the day, "Mac" is hardly a need to accomplish the tasks needed by modern business. Again, Mac implementors are as free to bid on the contract offers when the contract renewals and new projects come up, just like Linux, Solaris, Windows, HP-UX, AIX, OpenVMS implementors are.
Sure I will, because you won't find me (if all the levels of security we have here is any indication, including massive clusters to do security auditing in real time with log consolidation and automated analysis). It's all about the stealth.
(never challenge a Unix sysadmin into hiding a Unix box).
And if I brought my Mac to your network, it probably would be because I run your network. Otherwise, I wouldn't even bother going to your office, much less connect to your network.
Look, I'm as much a Mac user as any other guy and I would like to see Apple embraced more in the corporate world, but you need to keep a level head here, you seem to have a rather negative view of IT, which I find quite strange for a self-claimed IT worker.
I still don't understand what you are arguing about. I never said to go outside company policy to do anything. I said if the company ("business") says we are moving in a direction, IT moves in that direction. I also said IT can make a case against moving in a direction, you just decided, arbitrarily I might add, that I meant to do it at a certain time. If your IT management doesn't examine business decisions in their early stages to determine their feasibility, then you have a serious problem in your organization.
If my boss comes to me with an assignment to do something against company policy, I will show him the specific policy. If he insists, I will submit it to his boss and work my way up the chain. Either policy must change or the assignment must change. "I'm going to tie it up in paperwork" isn't a solution to that issue.
