Comments for Comment of the Day: Google Apps Still Needs the IT Dept

Comment of the Day: Google Apps Still Needs the IT Dept

2008-02-29T07:57:44Z

In her post Google Sites the Next Sharepoint? Maybe Not...., Sarah Perez argues that Google's strategy with Google Apps is to "subvert the IT department altogether and appeal directly to the worker." But commenter benkepes said that IT is still key to Google Apps' success: "any success Google has within an enterprise setting [...] would seem to be to be a comment on the efficacy of the IT department itself." It's a fascinating discussion and thanks Sarah and benkepes - and all our other commenters - for putting the Google Apps hype under the ~~microsoft~~ microscope. Congratulations bennkeps, you've won a $30 Amazon voucher - courtesy of our competition sponsors AdaptiveBlue and their Amazon WishList Widget. Here's his full comment:

]]>

"I have to say I can’t agree with you Sarah, Google is clearly empowering operational level employees within an enterprise. In the event that their IT department hasn’t the funding (although given the fact that GApps is free this is a non starter anyway) or the time resource, operational and team level personnel can deploy the broader GoogleApps products to make the most of their collaboration potential. The way I see it, if IT departments were doing their jobs (and some are) there would be no need to be having this discussion. They would be sufficiently user-centric to decide on the best product for their users needs, be it MS, Google or anything else.

In all this discussion around circumventing, or not, corporate IT departments, people seem to have lost sight of the real issue here. Corporate IT’s role is to assess and implement solutions that provide the functionality to the users that those suers require. It isn’t to build empires or create silos. Any success Google has within an enterprise setting (and I’m not going to wade into the argument about whether or not Google apps is having enterprise level success) would seem to be to be a comment on the efficacy of the IT department itself.

For too long CIOs have been technology centric on the one hand and compliance driven on the other. Between cuddling up to the big software vendors and spending time worried about the skins with regards Sarbanes Oxley compliance, they’ve lost site of the fact that their existing offering to the business are lacking.

Rather than finding ways to block their users making individualised and decentralised decisions, they should be partnering with the business units to truly asses their requirements and the best solutions to fulfil their needs."

Comment from Business Loans on 2011-03-25

2011-03-25T23:28:28Z

IT department in every company is necessary. I don't argue with it~!

Comment from School In Paranaque on 2011-03-09

2011-03-10T03:30:48Z

Oh, so who doesn't need one?

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2008-02-29

2008-02-29T20:13:17Z

Bill, I agree IT will favor the conservative option, although I don't necessarily agree it'll be Microsoft in the near future. It may well become Google Apps, if the functionality improves. Right now, Microsoft Office solutions are clearly superior in terms of functionality to Google Apps. But once Google (and let's not forget the open source solutions like OpenOffice) ramps up more, then it won't be as clearcut for the IT dept.

Comment from Bill Arneson on 2008-02-29

2008-02-29T12:58:13Z

Mr. MacManus,

I have to disagree with your comments and side compeltely with Mrs. Perez on her post.

Businesses, at least in the United States, are under the strict laws and regulations of governemtn oversight. Obviously there are differences depending on public/private, financial, healthcare, etc. Each industry has their own standards and regulations.

I am in the financial industry and I can say the Board of Directors is held personally responsible for everything done in the Information Technology department. All members of the board, must sign the IT plan each year.

These people will incur steep personal fines and face serious jail time depending on the severity and handling of IT compliance failures.

I seriously doubt the richest people in our country will allow the bottom rung of employees to choose the applications and procedures they want to use because they read about it on the Internet.

I believe Google has some amazing products for the small business environment, and they should be able to eliminate the need for MS Small Business Server. However, once a business begins to face strictly enforced laws and regulations, they will always go with old faithful...Microsoft.

Comment from Mark Harrison on 2008-02-29

2008-02-29T12:20:30Z

Well, I disagree with a number of things in the comment you quoted.

1: The role of IT in the enterprise is ... whatever the Board say it is.

If the Board have elected for a centralised control model, then it absolutely IS up to IT to model that business structure in the systems they run. If that means enforcing central architectures and trying to stamp out silos, then that is what IT should be doing.

If the Board have decided that individual initiatives and creative tension are the way to go, then it's the job of IT to get behind that and help individual manager / employees find the right solutions.

I know which type of company I'd rather work for... but which I'd rather invest in is less clear-cut.

I've worked with organisations that do both. One has the problem that a central inflexible system that IT have built/bought doesn't quite meet anyone's needs... The other has the problem that the ad hoc, sharing system works very well right up to the moment when the auditors point out the lack of controls and refuse to sign off the company's annual report.

2: Lack of funding vs. cost of GApps.

I've yet to see an analysis that puts the cost of the software licence much over 25% of the total cost of running a given piece of software. Hardware, telecoms, user productivity, training, and interfacing tend to swamp it.

If GApps reduces these costs, then it helps the funding situation. If you have an office where everyone already HAS a standardised suite of apps, then moving some / all to another, even one with no licence cost, isn't a "non-starter" issue!