Some people adore computers and everything to do with them. I love them when they make my life easier. So while I admire the idea of open-source software, you won't find me developing any.
When someone else finds a solution that's clean, simple and works, though, it seems foolish not to take advantage. So I recently installed an application called Dropbox, which allows me to back up my current projects, choose which files or folders to share with colleagues, and automatically synchronises files I and colleagues might be working on.
Except, of course, it isn't as easy as that once you're dealing with government agencies or big corporates. I tried sharing a folder with someone at an environmental quango last week and got this response: 'I'm afraid my government laptop is so locked down that I'm unable to install any software at all.'
Similarly, I tried sharing a folder with someone who works for a major civil engineering firm. The response: 'I have to let you know that I can't/won't download the dropbox application onto [our] heavily firewalled and controlled network.'
For Dropbox, read also Google docs, Slideshare, or a host of other nifty applications designed to help make collaboration and project management simpler. In the interests of imagined security, we're left dependent on the clunkiest, most accident-prone ways of working. Given the proportion of email that consists of people offering free degrees, penis extensions, imaginary lottery winnings or a combination of all three, what makes the guardians of corporate and government networks think it's such an ideal way of working?
It's the attitude that leads organisations to ban Twitter and Facebook, because obviously people will only abuse it. Paul Wilkinson has an entertaining and insightful post on that one.
A few weeks ago John Denham, secretary of state for communities and local government, waxed lyrical about the possibility of freeing up local government data to allow users and citizens to share in the development of public services. It's a great idea.
But as Warren Hatter pointed out in his blog at Local Government Chronicle, 'real devolution requires reputational risk in the short-term, the inevitability of some failure in some areas, and a refocusing of accountability'.
I wonder how many people in charge of corporate and government IT networks would share such attitudes - or even recognise the concepts?
Tweet your comment
Sunday, November 8
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think the corporate IT departments have issues with what you are saying - but it's the control element that keeps it all working nicely for you.
If you get a chance have a chat with the people who run these networks. Facebook is often banned to stop the extra bandwith sucked up by people playing videos, games, etc. If you're facing a bill of what could be 10's or 100's of thousands of pounds extra to get a bigger pipe - what would you do?
The reason many PC's are locked down in most organisations is to make them easier to maintain and run. It's about consistancy to make support as efficient as possible as well as reduce the potential risks to your PC.
So while I can understand the frustration, because I feel it as well, it's good to open dialogue with those trying to run the system as efficiently as possible. Thats what I did and what I learned suprised me!
And as I was reminded - the PC I use and the network I use aren't mine. I just think they're mine - almost a right!
Go for it - engage in conversation.
Jon, thanks for the comment. It's good to hear the dark side isn't entirely evil.
But the issue really is about whether it's better to devolve responsibility or not. Banning Facebook begins with the assumption that people will abuse it. And efficiency looks very different from the perspective of the user compared with the administrator, who is there to make his or her own life easier.
I'd suggest one answer might be to devolve responsibility for PC use to small workgroups who can decide between themselves what's needed and what isn't. Networked networks (or cells, if you want to use a social/political analogy) are less vulnerable, particularly if each has its own firewall, antivirus protection etc.
Better still, why not actually give the hardware to the users and tell them they're responsible for it? You might find people more capable of using it intelligently than the gatekeepers tend to imagine.
Of course I'm lucky because I run a small business and take full responsibility for my own computer use. And I use a Mac.
Ah yes - I guess it depends on the size and complexity of the things people have to manage.
I guess I can't tell the IT people to keep costs down and at the same time want it as flexible as I want. It's cheaper to go down PC World and buy it there - but then again I've never used PC World to set up an office.
Thanks for the link to my piece on the "research" findings regarding the cost of Twitter, Julian.
I notice that the subject has been revisited by the Daily Telegraph today in relation to the Twitter costs incurred by Lord Mandelson's department - I have just blogged about it as I can't help but think there are too many cynics who reduce everything down to cost rather than looking at the potential value that social media can bring. See More cynical sniping at Twitter
Post a Comment