This is huge. I have worked at startups where employees feels animosity towards the dev team. "What do they even do?" people ask, given we roll in at 11am and don't ever seem to fix any of the things that are broken for them.
Of course we are always saying "no" to every passing request - last thing we need is scope creep and to take on more tasks than we can reasonably accomplish. Of course we think we're busy, and we are, but we can't satisfy everyone. There is tons of appeal in just buying some software to "get the job done."
And we are so averse to buying third-party Enterprise Software Packages because they're, uh, bad, or something. Expensive. They integrate with Excel, and we hate Excel. We can do the same thing ourselves, obviously, but more quickly. Who needs an accounting software anyway, how hard could it be?
Often they are bad. Netsuite integration is awful, Salesforce integration is awful, and even startups who should theoretically have a superior product end up being awful (for example, last I checked, OrderGroove - which claims to take the pain out of subscription services - is not PCI even compliant, so they can't meaningfully handle billing issues.)
On the one hand, I want to applaud this - if you need something done, go buy something to accomplish the task and don't worry about your persnickety developers.
On the other hand, devs are often the ones who have to maintain and integrate with a half-baked piece of software and are never consulted to evaluate how viable that software will be to solve the problem at hand. But this trend makes me nervous, as an in-house dev, and I think that is a good thing.
> I have worked at startups where employees feels animosity towards the dev team. "What do they even do?" people ask, given we roll in at 11am and don't ever seem to fix any of the things that are broken for them.
This is fairly common, although I would extend it to include all technical departments (IT / Engineering). Ironically, I've also witnessed engineering beefing with IT & Helpdesk for this very reason.
> Of course we are always saying "no" to every passing request
All too often internal technical departments are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as units whose sole function is introducing speed bumps. I also tend to agree that the implications are potentially non trivial.
The relationship between internal support providers and their customers has to be one of the most frustrating in the corporate world. The provider NEEDS x and y and z before he can solve the customer’s problem. The customer just wants a thing, that does ‘you know’, and just works. Both are hampered by corporate policies and processes.
There are ways of making this relationship go more smoothly. But as an internal support provider you will need to change your perspective in order to make this work. You might find this hard to hear, to take and to make the changes we recommend. We’re dedicating this cast to the Atlanta January 2012 conference attendees who found it hard to hear, but thanked us for telling them anyway. We hope you’ll feel the same way.
I'm sorry, but by the end of that podcast I was fully willing to go get myself a life sentence for doing something horrible to the presenters. They made two main points:
1. You, as a member of internal IT, are subservient to marketing. Suck their dicks! "You're collaborating, but make no mistake, you're not a partner." (Also, the CEO will "piss on" the CIO whenever he gets a chance.)
2. Internal software development must obviously be "fungible", because it's a thing businesses do, and all the other things that businesses do are. Since every other department spends marginal amounts of ingenuity (and lots of bureaucracy) to do reliable, repeatable things, and managers can "crack the whip" to remove some of the slack+busywork+bureaucracy from their processes, then software engineering (a process of spending one's entire budget of ingenuity each day to create things that have never existed, and for which there is no precedent) must obviously be amenable to the same demands to "work smarter, not harder." And he says this while namedropping the Mythical Man Month.
I don't know about you, but the only thing I want to do in relation to these sorts of companies, is to out-compete them and obviate their markets in the long run, by keeping all my employees healthy and sane instead of "pushing" them to death for no marginal gains. This sort of attitude is precisely why "developing for the Enterprise" doesn't catch on as a trend among startups, no matter how profitable it is.
---
P.S.: They also begin to make the [sensible!] point that you should probably ask people "what do you need" instead of saying "send me your requirements" and then stonewalling, but it doesn't quite get there. That's obviously the reason you linked it, but it falls flat.
Here, I'll make the point they should have made, and I'll do it in one paragraph:
> Since your whole training in programming is basically a course in "teasing out the specifics of what people want in concrete machine-encodable business-domain terms", the fastest way to get those requirements out of people (who have not been trained in that) is to present yourself as a REPL, not a compiler. Imagine if you had to throw code over a wall and wait a few days to see it get rejected with an obscure compiler error (basically, imagine the 1970s.) Now imagine sitting down with the computer and just trying things and seeing what works. For the sake of everyone's sanity, you want to present yourself as the second kind of system. Otherwise, "buy" becomes a much more pleasant notion than "build", and as a CIO that should make you feel like you're not doing your job.
Thanks for your feedback. The podcast overall is definitely non-maker-centric and I guess it's been a while since I listened to both of the episodes, (parts 1 and 2 that is) or I would have added that it gets better in the second part. Perhaps you didn't have a chance to listen to part 2?
(http://www.manager-tools.com/2012/02/internal-support-roles-...)
I would also agree with your summary, and add to it the presenters' proposition that improving your relationships with others in the organization will go a long way toward helping both them and you produce better results.
I had assumed that the devs in a start-up worked primarily on code for external customers and nothing - or practically nothing - for the internal customers.
In large organizations, the shear overhead that is IT creates these barriers. Developer tasks are often slated with plans one to three years long. IT fears ad-hoc, one-off, slapped together, or anything like it because it becomes a maintenance problem and takes special skills.
For example, in our organization, IT prohibits the use of Access to build applications, because they end up being a versioning nightmare with copies all over the place, and no concept of "source code".
End users end up building applications in Access because they can, and it will take them two weeks to get a prototype. If they ask IT to do it, they'll need a departmental budget (politics!) and it will take six months to get started (between people who intentionally slow down process in order to look important, and the filled up timeslots of developers). Then, it will be in the standard IT development environment (for us, .NET and MS SQL) which means it is opaque to the customer, and every change they ask must go through IT, and gets bogged down in IT process.
So they go with Access. Two years later, that employee has moved on, and IT gets a phone call from the customer "We have this mission-critical application that has a bug and we need you to fix it!" and then the real pain starts.
This is new? I've been doing this for years. Its called find the origin of the pain. You don't sell software to the IT team. You sell it to however needs it. Pretty obvious. Just be nice to the IT team because they will be the ones calling you when shit hits the fan. I like to send them small gifts in the form of specialty food. Like cakes, and stuff like that. They always appreciate it. Just don't send them pens...
Web-based SaaS has made it much easier for corporate buyers to circumvent internal IT altogether.
The shift in focus (if that is actually the case) probably has more to do with wider acceptance and saturation of the tech-to-tech market.
How far this trend will go? Until internal IT for most companies except those with very specialized needs has been reduced to maintaining desktops and a network.
Edit: of course those desktops also risk getting replaced by BYOD...
Can you sell me some software that will let me bypass my IT department that's on "our" (I feel we have a relationship now) second ticket to fix a recurring bluescreen because they insist on trying to troubleshoot it and fix it (see: second ticket) rather than just issuing a new laptop and troubleshooting it on their own time?
Couldn't agree more! Consumerization of IT is part of the reason I started https://starthq.com. I feel that there's a really big opportunity at the intersection of internal IT, employees and third party developers.
Of course we are always saying "no" to every passing request - last thing we need is scope creep and to take on more tasks than we can reasonably accomplish. Of course we think we're busy, and we are, but we can't satisfy everyone. There is tons of appeal in just buying some software to "get the job done."
And we are so averse to buying third-party Enterprise Software Packages because they're, uh, bad, or something. Expensive. They integrate with Excel, and we hate Excel. We can do the same thing ourselves, obviously, but more quickly. Who needs an accounting software anyway, how hard could it be?
Often they are bad. Netsuite integration is awful, Salesforce integration is awful, and even startups who should theoretically have a superior product end up being awful (for example, last I checked, OrderGroove - which claims to take the pain out of subscription services - is not PCI even compliant, so they can't meaningfully handle billing issues.)
On the one hand, I want to applaud this - if you need something done, go buy something to accomplish the task and don't worry about your persnickety developers.
On the other hand, devs are often the ones who have to maintain and integrate with a half-baked piece of software and are never consulted to evaluate how viable that software will be to solve the problem at hand. But this trend makes me nervous, as an in-house dev, and I think that is a good thing.