One of the readings this week, Mark Keil's "Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of project escalation," reminded me of the lecture that included the cautionary tale of a library system that hired a company, and several years after the project was supposed to be complete, they still didn't have anything operational. Yikes.
I've been thinking about how IT professionals track all the different machines and software at their organizations this week. Last week, one of the groups presented the idea of having a tag on each machine that held a record of its history, to help make the IT workers' jobs more efficient. We've talked about how more academic sites with a strong feeling of intellectual freedom and privacy rights might feel that Big Brother is trespassing on their space if IT were to dictate every computing detail. Yet, in a big corporation, everyone might be forced to have the same computer with the same set up, with very tight security to monitor it.
What is the best way to track all the different computers and the different set ups in a given organization? In our department, we have about 20 PCs for customer use. They all have special software that is not available on any other computers in the library system, and even those 20 are not all alike. Sometimes we feel frustrated in our office when IT re-images our computers, and we realize--too late--that some of the user information for some of the special programs has disappeared. We feel irritated that they can't keep the different computers straight, even though we have provided them with list after list...yet, I know that when those projects are automated, they're not going to think to dig back through email or through a file for the special computers.
Today, I had to struggle to find one of those lists, to help me with an estimate I needed for a grant report. I knew before, but today it really hit home what a pain it was to look at each computer separately, and try to figure out which software would be where. I can't imagine trying to manage an IT department that is responsible for hundreds of computers, and with their unique users and software.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Painful progress
I checked out a couple books to help me better conceptualize our team project. I found Managing Information Technology Projects, by James Taylor, and Effective IT Project Management, by Anita Rosen. I was hoping to find some sample IT plans, but, unfortunately, both of these books seem geared specifically toward individual projects. I think there will be useful sections, but I'm just not sure they cover the same scope that we are expected to cover in our team project.
I just don't feel that I have a firm grasp on what the project will look like. It would help me immensely to see a sample plan with all of the facets. I put a book on hold that looked like it would really be helpful--something about IT planning for libraries. Unfortunately, it was over-due, so who knows if it will be returned soon.
I just don't feel that I have a firm grasp on what the project will look like. It would help me immensely to see a sample plan with all of the facets. I put a book on hold that looked like it would really be helpful--something about IT planning for libraries. Unfortunately, it was over-due, so who knows if it will be returned soon.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Open Source Software = Big Money?
The readings this week were very interesting and varied. Outsourcing has been a hot topic in just about any management area. I had seriously considered writing about service-oriented-architecture for my issues paper. Understanding the needs of your team is important for meeting the goals of any project, and creating the right environment for software developers can lead to more successful projects.
I was really intrigued by the open source software information. I've heard a lot about Linux and OpenOffice, but I've never really used them. I've downloaded the occasional open source program for specific needs, such as using GIMP to make a logo for my wiki (www.ambientlibrarian.org). I knew that Red Hat made money off of distributing Linux, but I had no idea how many other companies have money-making ventures related to open source software. I knew about the value-added aspect of open source. I understood that to be providing a service related to the software, like Red Hat making it easier to install Linux. However, I thought that anything that was added to the source of the software had to remain free and open. I was surprised to read that Sun could base StarOffice on OpenOffice and then charge for it.
I wasn't as surprised to learn that some companies support open source not so much for open source's sake, but to undermine their competition. I guess business makes strange bedfellows. In 1982, who would have thought that IBM would be promoting the free stuff?
It's very exciting that open source software is now being recognized as a viable option for business and government operations. I had long heard that Linux was more reliable than Windows. I know that my own impression, however, was that we wouldn't see open source productivity software in our offices because it wasn't as reliable, usable, or supported. However, reading the Fitzgerald article, I realize that it's probably more usable in some ways that a Microsoft product. For example, it sounds like many open source programs are meant to be cross-platform. That might allow the users in your company to enjoy some of their own preferences (Apple vs. Mac) rather than being tied down to what everyone else in the organization has. As far as support goes, it sounds like that's one of the new business opportunities created by open source software.
I was really intrigued by the open source software information. I've heard a lot about Linux and OpenOffice, but I've never really used them. I've downloaded the occasional open source program for specific needs, such as using GIMP to make a logo for my wiki (www.ambientlibrarian.org). I knew that Red Hat made money off of distributing Linux, but I had no idea how many other companies have money-making ventures related to open source software. I knew about the value-added aspect of open source. I understood that to be providing a service related to the software, like Red Hat making it easier to install Linux. However, I thought that anything that was added to the source of the software had to remain free and open. I was surprised to read that Sun could base StarOffice on OpenOffice and then charge for it.
I wasn't as surprised to learn that some companies support open source not so much for open source's sake, but to undermine their competition. I guess business makes strange bedfellows. In 1982, who would have thought that IBM would be promoting the free stuff?
It's very exciting that open source software is now being recognized as a viable option for business and government operations. I had long heard that Linux was more reliable than Windows. I know that my own impression, however, was that we wouldn't see open source productivity software in our offices because it wasn't as reliable, usable, or supported. However, reading the Fitzgerald article, I realize that it's probably more usable in some ways that a Microsoft product. For example, it sounds like many open source programs are meant to be cross-platform. That might allow the users in your company to enjoy some of their own preferences (Apple vs. Mac) rather than being tied down to what everyone else in the organization has. As far as support goes, it sounds like that's one of the new business opportunities created by open source software.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Change Management
As I worked on my paper, I had to think quite a bit about how new technologies can be introduced. Also, in the technology-related projects that I have been involved with at work, it's very difficult to figure out where to start. This is actually the case with most large projects, whether they are related to technology, or not.
I think for this reason, the "Organizations as Systems" section in Chapter 9 of Managing Information Technology stuck out to me. I appreciated the model (based on the Leavitt diamond) that included the fundamental components of organization.
In comparison to some of the studies we've come across in class, the technology projects that I have worked on have been very small. Still, they bring up the issues of people, information technology, business processes, and organization structure. Several years ago, we undertook a project to put literacy labs in all of our regionals. Even within those four fundamental components, it's hard to know where to start. When do you bring in the staff at those libraries? Do you have your entire plan formulated before you talk to them, so they feel that you've thought out the details? Or, do you meet with them first, so that they feel they've had an opportunity for significant input? Will their staff people have to assist with the technology that we're adding, or is it simply in their space? Do we start attending staff meetings to explain the literacy labs before the labs are built, or wait until the computers are up, so that we can train and demonstrate?
When undertaking a new project, it's important to really consider the various parts of your "system" that your project will affect. Thinking in terms of people, information technology, business processes, and organization structure may really be a simple way to help you cover all your bases.
E. Wainwright Martin, Carol W. Brown, Daniel W. DeHayes, Jeffrey A. Hoffer, and William C. Perkins. Managing Information Technology, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
I think for this reason, the "Organizations as Systems" section in Chapter 9 of Managing Information Technology stuck out to me. I appreciated the model (based on the Leavitt diamond) that included the fundamental components of organization.
In comparison to some of the studies we've come across in class, the technology projects that I have worked on have been very small. Still, they bring up the issues of people, information technology, business processes, and organization structure. Several years ago, we undertook a project to put literacy labs in all of our regionals. Even within those four fundamental components, it's hard to know where to start. When do you bring in the staff at those libraries? Do you have your entire plan formulated before you talk to them, so they feel that you've thought out the details? Or, do you meet with them first, so that they feel they've had an opportunity for significant input? Will their staff people have to assist with the technology that we're adding, or is it simply in their space? Do we start attending staff meetings to explain the literacy labs before the labs are built, or wait until the computers are up, so that we can train and demonstrate?
When undertaking a new project, it's important to really consider the various parts of your "system" that your project will affect. Thinking in terms of people, information technology, business processes, and organization structure may really be a simple way to help you cover all your bases.
E. Wainwright Martin, Carol W. Brown, Daniel W. DeHayes, Jeffrey A. Hoffer, and William C. Perkins. Managing Information Technology, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Progress this week
This will be brief. This week I've been really concentrating on my issues paper. I've found some really interesting resources. My blog will be more interesting next week, hopefully!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
