IT people are overly wedded to logic

[DodgyAgent]

So why do you often accuse people who disagree with you on political matters of being 'lefties'? Politics isn't a simple binary left-right matter.

I do this to point out to them where they are coming from in their "arguments" in order to encourage them to think through what they are saying. Quite often a lot of points are made using cliches that do not answer a point with any logic but instead try to illicit/manipulate an emotional reaction in order to support what I can only call a mindset.
So when I accuse them of being lefties I am merely asking them to argue the point because I know that they will want to explain themselves out of being labelled as such.
Do I make myself clear?

[DodgyAgent]

Whilst we are on the subject of management it is telling that there is so much dislike of management on this board. I have a requirement to replace three senior managers all of who have been promoted within the same company over many years. They are very good technicians but they look at everything from an IT point of view rather than what is needed to fit the business requirement. Over the years an obsession has emerged with the word business as if it is some sort of far off concept. Everyone talks in IT of business focus as if it is something foreign and revolutionary that should be adopted.
The truth is that business is a far off concept that few in IT really understand even today. For example an IT system does not always need to be a rolls Royce project built by top engineers. Many such systems are cobbled together by a bunch of cowboys and work perfectly fine yet all I hear on this board are cries about quality when most likely your version of quality is not required.
The trouble is that most of you think that managers are simply there to stand in the way of what you want to do when they have a system to deliver at a budget that has severe limitations. In the meantime they have to deal with a bunch of fleck wits who have no comprehension of what is really required.

[doodab]

I do this to point out to them where they are coming from in their "arguments" in order to encourage them to think through what they are saying. Quite often a lot of points are made using cliches that do not answer a point with any logic but instead try to illicit/manipulate an emotional reaction in order to support what I can only call a mindset.
So when I accuse them of being lefties I am merely asking them to argue the point because I know that they will want to explain themselves out of being labelled as such.
Do I make myself clear?

This is bollocks. You often espouse your beliefs without foundation and when people point out the flaws in your reasoning your first reaction is, without fail, to call them a leftie and spout a bunch of cliches of your own. Perhaps if you tried backing your own arguments up with facts or reasoned arguments instead people might be willing to return the favour instead of assuming you're just a noxious troll and treating you as such.

[original PM]

indeed what DA says!

Oh and whoever mentioned it I am not Project Manager - thus do not have manager in my title!

But yes fact is the business has a need for a new system and often IT (which is the area I work in) do all they can to overcomplicate things and do not really understand the goal.

The system are a means to achieve the goal they are not the goal themselves.

[DodgyAgent]

And another thing managers have to deal with is IT people who build up a proprietary knowledge of a system and keep it to themselves and then use this knowledge to enhance their own standing and obstruct anything that they do not like.

[DodgyAgent]

This is bollocks. You often espouse your beliefs without foundation and when people point out the flaws in your reasoning your first reaction is, without fail, to call them a leftie and spout a bunch of cliches of your own. Perhaps if you tried backing your own arguments up with facts or reasoned arguments instead people might be willing to return the favour instead of assuming you're just a noxious troll and treating you as such.

Give me an example.. There that should keep you quiet for a few weeks.

[original PM]

And another thing managers have to deal with is IT people who build up a proprietary knowledge of a system and keep it to themselves and then use this knowledge to enhance their own standing and obstruct anything that they do not like.

aaaaand you can have a +1 for that

we have just gone through a rather large re-organisation and have had to get rid of tens of people who fit the above profile - good people but problem is they did not move with the times - a business has to continually evolve to stay alive and this means the people with in need to.

Again the system do not exist to give you a job the exist to fulfill a task - over time that task will change and therefore so must the system.

[Mich the Tester]

For example an IT system does not always need to be a rolls Royce project built by top engineers. Many such systems are cobbled together by a bunch of cowboys and work perfectly fine yet all I hear on this board are cries about quality when most likely your version of quality is not required.

But yes fact is the business has a need for a new system and often IT (which is the area I work in) do all they can to overcomplicate things and do not really understand the goal.

The system are a means to achieve the goal they are not the goal themselves.

Fair points. Maybe this is why I'm happier in industrial or safety cricital systems than I ever was in finance, HR or other admin systems. When industrial systems, healthcare technology or emergency services technology fails, there are very serious consequences that involve lives as opposed to sums of money (which are undeniably important); that means there's often a respect for those who stand up for top quality. Sure, there can be some bureaucracy too, but in general I find the IT geeks and the engineering geeks work well together and build brilliant stuff that makes money.

[MarillionFan]

Whilst we are on the subject of management it is telling that there is so much dislike of management on this board. I have a requirement to replace three senior managers all of who have been promoted within the same company over many years. They are very good technicians but they look at everything from an IT point of view rather than what is needed to fit the business requirement. Over the years an obsession has emerged with the word business as if it is some sort of far off concept. Everyone talks in IT of business focus as if it is something foreign and revolutionary that should be adopted.
The truth is that business is a far off concept that few in IT really understand even today. For example an IT system does not always need to be a rolls Royce project built by top engineers. Many such systems are cobbled together by a bunch of cowboys and work perfectly fine yet all I hear on this board are cries about quality when most likely your version of quality is not required.
The trouble is that most of you think that managers are simply there to stand in the way of what you want to do when they have a system to deliver at a budget that has severe limitations. In the meantime they have to deal with a bunch of fleck wits who have no comprehension of what is really required.

Absolutely spot on. I hear of 'quality' all of the time during initial meetings. When pushed on deadlines the developers then force all of their code in and blame the business for the lack of quality because of forced deadlines.

So we tried the opposite. Gave the developers the time, they then concentrate on their own skills and piss about, waste the time and have to rush it in getting poor quality. Now it's the fault of the process

So we let them implement their own process. It's overly complex, the business can't understand it, put their reqs in and when at the end it wasn't what the business wanted and it's poor quality its the fault of the bloody business again.

Ffs

[Mich the Tester]

Absolutely spot on. I hear of 'quality' all of the time during initial meetings. When pushed on deadlines the developers then force all of their code in and blame the business for the lack of quality because of forced deadlines.

So we tried the opposite. Gave the developers the time, they then concentrate on their own skills and piss about, waste the time and have to rush it in getting poor quality. Now it's the fault of the process

So we let them implement their own process. It's overly complex, the business can't understand it, put their reqs in and when at the end it wasn't what the business wanted and it's poor quality its the fault of the bloody business again.

Ffs

Trouble is, I've never seen a 'quick and dirty' application that doesn't morph into a critical application or an interface for several other systems. So often managers say ít's only a temporary solution, but years later half a bloody multinational doesn't realise it's become dependent on some crappy MS Access DB thrown together with no thought of the future, and it ends up costing gazillions of euros to replace with some some swanky SAPCrap or Siebeltheweeble 'complete enterprise solution'. Of course, this does provide invoicing opportunities for contractors.