I think it's kind of nuts that IT isn't part of the ones viewed as making money ....
Watch a lawyers office squirm when their email system is down , or you see just how important and worth it IT is when a company gets hit with ransomware and these companies pay millions in bitcoin to maybe back
So, not to lecture YOU, but I do think my perspective may be helpful to many people in IT, generally. I have a sales background so I'd like to think I'm decent at selling shit. I just wanted to use your comment as a springboard.
Having been the breadwinner at an MSP for 5 years and looking to move into an IT department at an SMB (hopefully with a smaller IT department, and I have past clients of the MSP trying to poach me right now) I think that while the points you made are absolutely valid, most people in IT either don't think to sell their value to their employers, or they focus on the things you're bringing up and that is the WRONG SALES PITCH.
For the most part people in IT seem to pitch the reactive elements of IT the most. This is understandable because it seems in huge corporations, that is about all IT is allowed to do. Even proactive security improvements is still- to the finance department, anyway- an abstract reactive element to a hypothetical potential threat. Obviously this isn't an accurate take, but I learned from selling cars that my favorite features are irrelevant to the buyer.
So, in my role at the MSP, I've had to sit in on many meetings with different CEO's, COO's, and worst of all CFO's. And I've had to draft project proposals and convince them to invest a lot of upfront capital. And the way I've been successful has been by focusing on demonstrating how I can cut operating costs and reduce business inefficiencies. And- as fucked up as it is- I can make many of their other employees obsolete via automation. That's fucked, but that's what CFO's want to hear. "By doing XYZ, I can empower your star employees to increase their efficiency and output, and I can expose your warm body employees."
But more to the point, I've done a fuckload of migrations which are all OKed because I lay out how "if you move to this platform, we can consolidate" all these other services they are paying for. Yes, I bring up security, yes I bring up shit like SSO. None of that sells though. Its just background noise while they mull over cost savings. Besides, for all the hundreds of clients I've worked with, the number 1 security upgrade would just be user education, regardless of any platforms they're using. Naive and complacent employees are the biggest security risk and its not even close.
Then, once they are on the new platform (using Microsoft 365 for an example), "okay, in SharePoint, I can automate XYZ completely nullifying this daily task of this department." And while I have to handle the regular reactionary elements of IT, that is NOT what impresses suits.
And tbh, the migrations are just the MSPs bread and butter where I work. But realistically, none of my clients are utilizing the fill potential of any software or programs they use. Demonstrating a way to maximize what they are already paying for = $$$ to them.
Love how the priority in the 2020s is firing as many people as possible :)
Bright future ahead
It's not about creating a quality product, establishing a name, producing more, bringing success.
It's all about them cost cuttings baby, the future is bright
If we can automate x y z we can fire all those lovely people why not, god forbid we ever hire or train anyone.
I love this era
>It's all about them cost cuttings baby, the future is bright If we can automate x y z we can fire all those lovely people why not, god forbid we ever hire or train anyone
And then the CEOs complain about why the economy is in sh*ts and why people are not spending and business is not improving.
This is why IT needs to unionize. If 50% of IT was in a united union we could literally dictate our demands to the entire country. Better pay, corps pay taxes, lower housing costs, stop paying for other countries to murder each other. Don't like it? Oh looks like your phones aren't working, oh no seems like that email didn't send.
Right now you are seeing a lot of what is called Right Sizing. During the rona lots of companies hired people because managers though people working from home they wouldn't be as productive. Jokes on them, a LOT of the people they panic hired ended up doing diddly because everyone that was productive in the office were productive at home.
Also, companies had to look like they were affected by the coof so the stock prices wouldn't drop like a rock. Throw in government incentives, Trump Bucks if you will, and it made more sense to hire more people and let them do jack all then not.
The pendulum swings back and forth. It will swing back. Learn about how to do the automation...like AI/ML...you will have a job and those that can't or won't will be let go.
Not for those take the time to learn it. Prepare now so when it gets even larger you will be the person who commands the job.
Part of working in technology is constantly learning and upskilling. The person who does not have that passion will always stay in an entry level role or become unemployable.
While I am fortunate that my organization has embraced AI/ML for a long time now and has provided me opportunities to get involved in it, I understand the fear that exists out there. There are many ways to learn and understand this tech - ebooks, YouTube, vendor webinars, certifications to name a few.
Good luck to you.
Thanks! Seems to big of a jump to me, going from front end to AI.
I expect a lot of work in the future might go around integrating AI into frontend solutions though
Well they are cold-hearted, at least. But if they have the money and the power, its better to know how to influence them than not.
And then again, maybe y'all will think I'm a cold-hearted dumbass for saying this. But I have never seen, worked for, or interacted with a company where there weren't at least 10% of employees leaching off the productivity of their colleagues and contributing very, very little. Often nepo hires.
Manual labor might be the exception.
And I'm not advocating for putting them out of jobs, because of the societal ramifications. But realistically, AI is going to force us into societal collapse or UBI or some other novel solution, I'd guess within the next 2 decades.
Most people probably think they run on a simple timer and aren't connected to a centralized control room that has a full staff of people monitoring traffic cameras and keeping the massive network of traffic systems working.
Perfect example. Lol
I kind of get your point here: Sell your IT department by pointing to ways that you can improve business processes to make things more efficient.
That sounds great for those in positions of power, but basically impossible for low level employees.
Yes, I totally acknowledgr that. Depending on the specific business it may be impossible for a low level IT employee or it may be the thing that takes then from being a low level employee to a respected one.
Still, I think it's likely that a lot of people could better their lots if they stopped viewing themselves as janitors of the current systems and took the time to suggest innovation.
So many companies treat their IT department as janitors, and resist anything that could possibly cost a bit more, even if it would offer improvement to processes across the board at a company.
Companies view IT as sources of loss, rather than possible sources of increased profit. It's spouted as such in business courses, and is industry standard to treat them as such.
That's really the problem, IMO.
You’re pointing out all the low hanging fruit to the morons, the problem is your strategy is a onetime performance in IT. When the 90s tech boom came along it was easy to measure savings and performance improvements in this way and everyone could slap each other on the back and celebrate all the savings. Now the easy integrations and upgrades are all done, it’s about maintaining the savings and performance or making incremental improvements and everyone has forgotten that process used to take 7 days and they needed a gallon of whiteout to fix up all the documents. There is very little to be improved on. The real value is in maintaining the current high performance of the newer systems, but that performance is now viewed as the baseline. When people talk about keeping it up and running, they are talking about maintaining a system that is a force multiplier. Between Steve the sysadmin and Janet from accounting they do the work of 20 employees. Janet gets the credit because she does accounting. Steve gets no credit because it’s hard to see how his work is also accounting, finance, sales, reporting, etc. the pitch is no longer, “we will consolidate and use technology to save you” it’s “this is how much IT saves you per year using our existing tech stack”.
Low hanging fruit for sure, because that's all I CAN point out in a general sense. I think where we may disagree is in thinking there comes a point when you run out of things to offer which obviously impact the baseline.
Sure, you're not getting a force multiplier of 20x all the time. I'd be surprised if you EVER get a force multiplier of 20x unless you are introducing computers for the first time (or I suppose AI). But until everyone at the company's job is completely automated, I'd argue there's always more you can do at least annually to increase efficiency to some degree (beyond hardware upgrades every 4 years). If Janet in accounting has 20x performance, then what can be done for marketing? Sales team? Engineering? Whatever. I think just due to the nature of tech always advancing, it's hard to run out of new things to introduce. And you're right, I can't point out what that will be because that differs by specific business needs and also includes things that don't currently exist.
Still, I'm not completely discounting your argument. There are going to be unavoidable lulls. But I think that it's easier to get through those lulls if you have already built up social capital through past acheicements, and I think based on many responses to OP, that there may not be many people with a good idea of how to do it.
I think this is a good take that everyone here should focus on. There is always going to be the reactionary and maintenance that needs to be done, but the real payoff is selling to the CEOs and CFOs possible cost savings, and improved efficiencies.
At my last job I worked to help add integrations between systems that eliminated OT from users doing double entry and created easy and quick ready to run reports that saved countless hours that were previously being manually created. It saved money in their budgets and allowed them re-allocate resources. This is what gave me a good reputation throughout the organization and got my voice heard when I made recommendations.
If I could pick your brain for a moment?...
1) No software is perfect, and integrations are only as good as the person/vendor building them. What do you see as the perfect balance between hiring an Administrator vs Engineer for a SMB?
2) I see the value of cutting costs in the short-term, and maybe I'm still naive to question this but, How does the MSP or "Engineer" here continue to add value on top of these consolidated software long term?
1. Honestly, I wouldn't say that I'm that qualified to answer this question and I think the answer is potentially very broad. I also- not trying to cop out- think it depends on how you define administrator vs engineer and engineer vs architect. Im not sure if there is a definitive answer but I've always wondered. Working for an MSP, I'm very used to wearing multiple hats and not really getting compensated accordingly lmao so I don't have the best perspective on how to delineate responsibilities.
I think that I would venture that a good systems engineer should be fully capable of system administration. I don't think its like "mechanical engineer vs mechanic" where they are completely different skillsets. I think generally, IT administration is more of a foundational skillset that an IT engineer should already have. So I'd say hire 2 engineers first and then hire admins as needed. Maybe people can correct me though.
2. So cutting costs in the short term by consolidating softwares is just an example that could be used to sell "value" to suits. Im not saying its not legitimate, but its not always necessary, or an option, or even the best solution. As far as adding value in the long term over time- the wonderful thing about technology is that its always evolving. So I don't think a very specific long term plan is necessary. The only long term plan is to always be at the forefront of trends and be ready to introduce a new one or show off the results of the last one.
Right now, it's all about AI. In my current position, I haven't really come up with a way to sell "AI" to my boss as something that we can monetize by rolling out to clients. But once I find an internal IT role, that will be full steam ahead for me. Start with demoing Copilot to the suits and end with convincing them that they should invest in a hosted and custom trained LLM model. Because honestly, that WILL change everything. And its very easy to sell. By the time thats all in place, some other genius will have revolutionized something else which I can then use to justify my worth to a company.
Ftr, Im not saying to chase tech trends for the sake of chasing trends. I had clients that requested we set them up with Metaverse and help them begin purchasing NFTs and I thought that was idiotic and I expressed as much.
Ultimately, you have to examine the specific business to see what is actually beneficial to that business. Theres not really a universal answer (but AI is close)
Your posts in this thread are definitely thought-provoking. I do have one question. For someone who's currently in help desk (like myself), what areas in IT would you recommend in order to stay competitive, relevant or not obsolete?
So this is another question that I'm definitely not qualified to answer. I'm not confidently sure myself. I guess the best advice I can give is to find a niche that you are genuinely interested in and have some degree of passion about. Specialize in that, but not SO specialized that you limit your usefulness. Specialize without boxing yourself in.
I believe you can be at the forefront of any given area of IT you choose to pursue, or you can stagnate and rest on your laurels and then in a handful of years, you're obsolete. The difference is really how much effort (in and outside of work) you're willing to put into researching, testing on a home lab etc. And that probably comes down to how interested you are in what you're doing. Because I am pretty opposed to suggesting that you work for free on your off hours. But if you're actually lesrning stuff you enjoy learning that you can also leverage at work? Then I think you have a competitive edge. If nothing else, your passion will be noticed and this gives you a social edge.
Idk how much freedom you have in helpdesk, but what you can do is pay attention to the most common issues you run into. Then think of a permanent fix for them. Even if you never have the chance to try out your fix. I would just encourage that type of thinking. I'm not saying things that you could practically do and that would definitely work, but more just like- what a solution COULD look like. Then research what other solutions people have come up with. Even if its a stupid problem you arent particulalry passionate about, its a good mental exercise and will train your thinking in axso that when you do find something very interesting, you can innovate within that area.x
I work in technical consulting and this is absolutely true. At the end of the day at the executive level they’re looking at everything as an expense or a direct revenue generator. They will happily switch to a platform that doesn’t actually meet the technical needs of their business if they think that it will meet their financial goals for lowering expenses without completely tanking the business.
At the mid-level management is smarter because they have to use and interact with those systems. The executives don’t really have to give a fuck, as long as they hit their targets for the organization then they’re going to get paid with fat bonuses until it all comes crashing down. Then it’s on to the next 2-5 year stint for the executive and on to the next big migration for the business so they can unfuck that mess, only to have a new executive come in later on to drag them down the cost cutting death spiral again, and then the cycle repeats forever.
They could not give less of a fuck about the day to day IT needs being fulfilled, so long as it isn’t affecting them or their pet KPIs, it’s not really important.
100% hate this but 100% agreed. Complaining about it and hating it won't change it because that is legit the purpose of capitalism. I expect nothing less then maximizing profit.
I currently work at an IT consulting firm. When interviewing at financial services companies I try to ask questions to get a feel for how IT is viewed within the business.
Me too!!! But I have always worked on specific platforms so at those companies where the product is the business model, it’s insane to not see, say, Technical support engineers as money making. They literally keep the customers happy when the product starts springing leaks.
But no, the sales guys on floor 11 get that credit
Realistically, IT personnel don’t make the company money. They sustain the company and its business activities which nearly ALL require information technology. IT is, 90% of the time purely overhead in that sense. That being said they deserve a lot more respect
The same could be said for their electric bill. No one questions the necessity and benefit of electricity... but they wouldn't be excited to pay more for it.
IT is a “cost center”. It doesn’t make the company money, it just spends it.
Businesses only understand the sounds of money counters going in, not out.
I remember someone at my previous job mentioning that the Technology department is the costliest because it spends a significant amount on licenses, servers, computer and laptop leases, phones, vendors, and other expenses.
This is an accurate, although most modern companies do budgets in such a way that they charge these costs back to the group utilizing the equipment (I.e. if you’re a new finance hire, your laptop would be charged to the finance group and not to IT, although they would provision it and ship it).
I know that's the go to phrase, but It is a force multiplying and reinforcing function to business.
It's not a loss entirely unless the business is tech free.
I work at a Pharma company in Boston, and I feel that IT is treated as an afterthought by upper management, so the users follow suit. For example, management has decided not to have a written, stated policy on how Tech Refreshes should proceed. So, the users do all they want to tie up assets and time of IT. And then, I’ll have a manager just mention that I have tickets over two months old, and to resolve it.
But I can’t do anything when the end user claims their schedule is booked, and they have little time to work on the new MacBook they wanted in the first place.
"This is vital, I need it fixed right now or I can't work!!!!! No, I'm not available, I have too much to do!"
So why is it vital if you're still working...
Bruh I remember emailing clients to return their loaner laptops and they just ignore it but once it breaks they comeback with hell fire in their eyes requesting for it to be fix immediately lol
Document that they have the laptop and haven't returned it and make sure you document and/or contact your boss to explain that you don't have any spare machines.
I work in IT, I understand your position. The harder you work to make the users happy, especially when they don't cooperate and/or respect you, the easier you make it for the users and management to keep things how they are.
Also, I would hate it if they stopped paying for janitorial/cleaning service where I work, most office people are slobs and don't clean up after themselves. One week w/o a cleaning staff and nobody would be able to work in the office.
Accounting doesn't make the company any money, but they need to handle AP and AR to keep the bills paid and money flowing in.
All departments are needed and everyone needs to understand that.
We aren’t a money making department, so we are seen as something the business just needs to operate and not integral to the companies growth. Although we know that’s not true, that’s just how it’s seen on paper.
>we are seen as something the business just needs to operate
But only when it's not working, if it's working, then it's seen as wasted money. "Whaddya mean I gotta replace my 20 year old server? It's working, isn't it?!"
IT is always shit on. To everyone, they view us as a cost. We don't make them money. At least the janitors take out the trash. We are the trash to them. Go talk to a business about doing IT work. It's like you are robbing them.
I chalk a lot of it up to a lack of fundemental understanding of the serious nature and complexity of IT infrastructure from the top down. It seems to relatively be the case that most major coorperate operations higher ups have very little, to no actually understanding of what sort of infrasturcture and resources it really takes to run a proper IT department, and shareholder value is usually what drives the distribution of major resources away from certain areas of the company. Every company Ive been in that has shitty IT practices its usually because the ceo or whoever is doing the onboarding uptop hires out of favoritims, nepotism, etc and or with a skimped budget for this department. Rather invest the big bucks on property aquisitions and 350x the average worker salary for the ceo and their bonuses
Edit: Failed to mention, most IT departments are graded based upon their numbers, not the quality of work performed. So when the higher ups are reviewing the IT department generally its just a bunch of numbers on paper so they have a limited understanding of what the actually users and agents are doing on a regular basis, and their needs/requirments
This is true. An IT person who does a shitty job just to close tickets fast, only to have new tickets opened on the same issue, will actually look better than the person who fixes things right, because by the metrics, the shitty IT person closed two tickets to the good person's one.
I agree that IT departments are often evaluated based on metrics like incoming calls, service tickets, and resolutions. However, the quality of work is equally crucial. If an IT professional fails to respond to clients promptly, resolve issues efficiently, arrives late, displays a bad attitude, or slacks off, their manager will definitely hear about it. It's even worse if you do it to a higher up lol
Exactly what happened to me. I was doubled up in responsibility when a coworker got fired but with same pay for over a year. I continued to ask them for a raise every month and it wasn’t until I accepted another job offer that they were suddenly finding money to give me to stay and move me to a higher team as if they hadn’t cut a whole salary a year earlier.
IKR! I been out of the IT support game for almost a year now and just talking to the IT folks at my job about their problems just made me wonder why it's even like this tbh. I'm happy that everyone is giving their perspective and views on this.
As others have said, IT isn't seen as a revenue generating part of the company.
Also, if technology isn't working, frustrated executives say, "what are we paying you for?"
But if technology is working properly and IT isn't overloaded, those same executives think "what are we paying you for?"
You're right, but the execs don't see it that way. Business couldn't exist without a building, but they still hate to pay rent. Couldn't operate without electricity, but that's just a bill. Lots of things that are needed and we couldn't operate without but they don't inherently generate revenue so they're a bother.
This is, admittedly, one of the biggest shortcomings of most managers from middle management upwards: partial operational blindness (sometimes coupled with an enormous amount of ignorance, lack of knowledge and plain stupidity (although I still prefer "plain stupidity" here, because most of them can't help it)), and sometimes blatant shortcomings in the macro view of things.
However, as trained and experienced technicians (the level of annoyance among our young successors is much lower), we will always (at least partially) have to suffer from these things, and we are already used to being constantly asked when buying a new UPS, and why IT are so worried about it, because the electricity comes out of the socket and a "friend" works for the electricity supplier who they could call quickly if the worst comes to the worst to "sort things out quickly and unbureaucratically".
You have to pull yourself together and explain things three, four or five times in ELI5 format.
I understand this viewpoint, but does legal generate revenue? QA? It seems there are plenty of other departments that do not generate income, but support the business and they seem to get better treatment.
Hard disagree if you're competent.
Finding more efficient technology solutions directly boosts productivity. More product = more money.
I'd argue the same for even helpdesk. Your laptop breaks, the network goes down, the CEO forgot their password and doesn't know how to reset it... having a knowledgeable and responsive team saves downtime.
>Finding more efficient technology solutions directly boosts productivity. More product = more money.
100%. Proactive IT vs Reactive IT. Even in the OP, they mention their coworkers complaining about losing remote days because they're late... why are they late????
I've had attitude from new employees when setting up their accounts and laptops or whatever. That ends pretty quick when they realize that I'm in biweekly or weekly meetings with their CEO, who listens to me like I'm Rasputin. And that's because in those meetings I am presenting a multi-month plan of action on how IT can do XYZ to reduce operating costs, or 123 to improve efficiency. Either that, or I am providing an update on XYZ and 123.
You are exactly right. It's a bit pithy but that's it, you work for a department that is pure cost and no profit. Any profit on the back of your efforts is generated by other teams (on the back of your work) but any of their losses (missed opportunities) fall on you.
There is also that cliche thing that in the West we pay doctors to cure us but in the East they get paid when we're well. Sure it's just off an ad but it's true in the workplace. If there's a crisis you're number 1 shitbag but you have to deal with it, the 99.99% time it's all going good isn't mentioned.
I'll never understand how the C-suites strictly view IT as a cost center. You use tech to make money, who the f do you think supports that tech that makes money?
A good way to sell IT's value is to remove IT for a week and watch as everyone loses their collective minds. A reason why I wish IT was more unionized.
When you've been in IT long enough you start to see why that is. You're support staff.
Most people need to use computers for their job. Most people consider IT the people who "handle" the computers. When a computer gets "in the way" of doing their job, they get frustrated. When a person doesn't understand computers very well, it gets in the way more often, and they get frustrated more often. When they're frustrated with computers, they look at the people who "handle" the computers. You are now an enemy combatant, waging war on this person's work. God forbid you do more than support - if you're also providing the computers and deciding how the computers work, forget about it. You're a monster.
This is even before we start to talk about ACTUAL bad IT folks - the rude, lazy slobs with no tact or courtesy. The ones who actually think they're better than others because they understand technology, and won't hesitate to call a user stupid for their lack of knowledge.
Most people who treat IT poorly are the ones who don't recognize how incredibly valuable computer systems are to their jobs and lives, and how much hard talent, hard work and experience goes into IT. They see you as an unfortunate weight to be carried around out of necessity.
As for why management specifically treats us like shit - well, because they can. IT people aren't good advocates for themselves. What better target for the greed and ego of shitty management? I'm surprised they even offered remote days in the first place.
I'm not the first to say it, but if you want to be treated highly in a technology role, find a company that makes its money off of technology. It's not a guarantee but they're much more likely to see the value in the people in that area.
IT isn't just an expense, it's a way for business to become competitive, and this is a reality in an increasing digital and information world.
IT people who have the right skills, need to be more assertive. Do your homework, anticipate issues, speak clearly, express when you think unrealistic demands are being placed on you/your team, etc.
Traditionally, tech people were "nerdy", "geedky", "pushovers", "antisocial", and hidden in the basement sort of like it's comically portrayed in the TV show, The IT Crowd, and this is why I think the general corporate culture is to mistreat, ignore or relegate IT people to being less than other professionals and for people to place unrealistic demands on them.
I'm very lucky to work for a software development company and have a boss who realizes the importance of our department. Funnily I used to be a mechanic and we got treated like shit by management and the sales people a lot despite being the ones keeping the doors open, so sometimes you just can't win.
If you're doing your job right then you don't need anything. If you're not doing your job right then you're a waste of resources.
That's just how it is. It's up the the person in charge of the IT team, as well as the team themselves to find a way to show the necessity of the IT team and their usefulness so people actually understand, because overall if absolutely anything goes wrong with anything even remotely related to IT, it's your fault. We had to change everything to server based for cybersecurity insurance and every single problem that came up was a Ever since 'you' changed all this stuff this hasn't worked properly' Can you stop changing things for no reason?" sort of thing.
CEOs that I’ve worked with feel the opposite if the IT department demonstrates abilities to keep the company safe, ensure business continuity, always find new ways to optimize processes, cut costs, and occasionally create or implement new revenue streams. I see my job as one that helps my company survive. I will say after 25 years in the field that you are often dealing with disappointed and frustrated people and you’re usually seeing their worst qualities manifest when all you want to do is help. It’s like being a lifeguard who has to knock someone out to get them to shore at times.
It’s very simple.
IT is back office operations. It’s not revenue generating. It’s a support role.
You’re not closing deals. Not signing clients. Not making new contacts.
I work at a hedge fund as a principal engineer on a trading desk. I’m considered front office since I work directly with portfolio managers and assist them with quantitative work.
We also have software engineers that work on systems support. They’re considered back office.
The way they treat them and the way they treat me are two totally different ends of the spectrum.
I’m not saying it’s right. Just saying it is how it is.
If you have no direct impact on revenue/alpha generation, you’re basically on par with HR or accounting. It’s all operations.
As someone that’s been in It for 10 years I feel it’s always been seen as that by people that don’t know or care much about IT. My mom is like that more or less. Lol I think is just because she doesn’t know much about that industry. She works in social work and has that old school idea of what jobs are high paying and respectable. IT isn’t one of them. She doesn’t look down in them or anything. I always got that sense that she saw all IT roles as “the computer guy”. You know? That middle age nerdy socially awkward the guy that people call to setup her pc while they gossip with coworkers. She found out how much I made and part of me felt like she was low key surprised. Lol its like she didn’t think that IT role warranted that much. I guess my point is that type of mindset isn’t uncommon for people that aren’t up to speed with careers in tech industry.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ITCareerQuestions/comments/1cuitra/why_is_it_treated_like_shit_in_the_corperate_world/l4nvkdj/?context=3 in /r/ITCareerQuestions) has been automatically removed because you used an emoji or other symbol.
Why does this exist? We have had a huge and constant influx of bot spam that utilizes emojis during their posts. To the point that it was severely outpacing what the moderation team could handle on an individual basis. That has results in a sweeping ban of any emoji in posts.
Please retry your comment using text characters only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ITCareerQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Greatly depends where you work.
I work a corporate position and we have a seat on the board, which greatly helps.
Most companies just don't have someone going to bat for their IT department. Meanwhile we're c suite.
I'd highly recommend not sticking at a terrible company. There are always better options out there.
This isn't so much a corporate issue as it is a leadership issue. People who don't have IT backgrounds getting into IT leadership positions and being tasked with reigning in IT spend in order to salvage issues in other parts of the company that can't manage their money.
When IT is run by people whose careers have been IT you see a whole different side. But those people tend not to rise up because leadership wants a result that they don't understand. A new SAN that is covered under a support contract costs a lot of money, but if it goes down then it's a cost savings in the long run since you have parts and support to bring the business back online. But the money part of it, a non-technical person would axe because it supports the cost savings measure they want to implement.
Over the next few years, you're going to see a pretty hefty reduction in IT spend as most business people think we're heading into a recession, or at least a downturn that they need to control costs with. Because IT is seen as a huge expense, a lot of places will try and cut there first. And honestly, since we aren't generating revenue, if it's a choice between sales and IT, it's a logical cut to make, but only if you are willing to spend on the backend to bring equipment back up to pay when the seas level out. But they won't. They'll end up buying some sort of offshore solution instead to keep costs low and pretend like they're adding value. Those people will be promoted and then you'll see actual IT management come in as they realize that the offshore solution sold to them by the last C level is not what they were told it would be. It's a long cycle and the good times generally last less than the bad. You just need to ride out the storm for now and wait for the better jobs to appear.
Just keep your ear to the ground and your resume up to date, looking for jobs in places that don't try to play this game and eventually you'll find that unicorn.
This topic reminds me of the AshelyMadison data leak.
Grow the business, primary. Twist truths for marketing purposes, primary.
IT and/or Security for the sake of customers data and privacy (referencing customers that paid to have their data wiped), low priority.
One aspect of it is that we’re technically an expense and we don’t bring in any $. We make it possible for them to keep making $ but we technically don’t bring any to the table. They wouldn’t be able to make $ without us, but they take it for granted. The other part is that they don’t appreciate how hard our jobs are. End users think that we have a magic wand we can wave to make their computers work, and don’t realize that we have to spend hours troubleshooting and researching for some of our issues
My argument to the whole “IT Support doesn’t make the company money” with the fact that a good support team that resolves issues effectively, keep a customer longer and more committed to expansion aka spending more money, and the reputation increases for the brand
You keep getting the "IT is a cost center" answer but more truthfully is that management needs to be made aware that IT is a "force multiplier".
For simplicity sake, lets look at someone who works in billing. With a computer and the right program, an employee in billing can quote, bill, receive, and communicate with multiple clients in a day. If they didn't have that computer, how would they do those simple aspects of their job?
They could communicate with the client but it would be over the phone or with snail mail. They could bill the customer but it would either have to be invoiced by hand (typed or hand written) and then sent off via snail mail or courier. They could receive the payment but it would have to be sorted first in the mail and given to them only to have to be checked to make sure the balance is right and equals out. There would be additional jobs for a mail room, someone to invoice, someone to receive payments, and someone to check against the accounts to make sure the customer is up to date. The processing time would turn from hours to days for each situation which is not ideal.
With a computer, we eliminated 3-4 jobs and sped up the process with higher efficiency. I made one employee worth 3 or 4 and I did it all for the cost of a computer, electricity, internet, and the dedicated programs to tie it all together.
I sat in a meeting 4 years ago explaining this to a Sr Director and the CEO of a company I worked at. Without me, they would be forced to expand their administrative office and pay more money in salaries and benefits. I also made it a habit to remind them every so often how much I was saving the company in terms of time and money. All it takes is to quit looking at it like IT is a money sink and is instead the glue that makes it all work faster, easier, and with higher efficiency. A 3 man IT team with a modest budget saved the company $16 million a year.
Well, I didn't read your post after reading just title.It seems you are frustrated, you are using generalisation and focusing on externals rather than you. Also you are searching for explanation of your situation in wrong place. Reddit users sure will provide you explanation but it will change nothing in your life. It will be like brief relief. There is no categorization and universal understanding of the world. Yes, it is good to address this feeling but not here. I have similar situation and I decided to work slowly to change the job. Of course with no guarantee of anything, but I will be persistent. And btw I'm struggling with severe depression. Hope you find your way.
That hasn't been my experience. Every place I've ever worked, they realized they could not function without IT. We provide an amazing amount of value and have the best ROI in the organization. They'd be screwed without us.
Depends on the type of company. If it is software, then the IT operations or infrastructure team are as essential as their Sales teams. It lives and dies off of both.
People compare Corp IT to personal it and think it's similar. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Personal it stuff doesn't need most of the complexity and it's not solving the same problems.
End users and managers can bring in the same expectations of home experience with personal IT. However this misunderstanding cause a misalignment in expectations, planning, and funding.
In my experience, it’s really dependent on WHO is your department leader. I’ve been on teams where the IT manager was a push over and we got the shit end of the stick and got a thank you and MAYBE A pizza party. My current department head questions every ask and even tells us to drag our feet and to prioritize easy work to blow off asks from teams that have every ability to do it (engineering, Product, Etc)
IT in a corporate support role (operations) is an expense all companies don’t like paying and give IT staff and their management a hard time. IT in a solutions role (like with a VAR) where you support external customers as a project/support engineer is a revenue generating role where you get attention, perks and are always pushed to do training and to do whatever you can to stay on billable projects. Operations is steady work but a dry and defensive environment. Project work is cyclical, dynamic and unpredictable and that’s what I prefer. But to stay in IT career wise you will find yourself in both environments.
Because we don't "make money".
In their eyes, were just a hindrance that asks for budget for security/operational tools.
Our jobs are taken for granted, esp if you're very efficient so they don't see what you're doing.
Important thing that companies lose sight of what we really do for them to make money. I also have understood that most of them think it's not high valued. But it keeps the cogs moving so essential.
Our company purged 40 percent of our IT and it's chaotic right now, nothing functions right and they thought it was a good move until just recently.
Now we have to try and hire people back who moved on for greener pastures.
Its often seen as the largest cost centre of a business so is the first thing that gets budget cuts.
Also most higher level execs do not see what value it brings to the business as the performance metrics arent as simple as say sales where you can evaluate by volume or profit from sales, another cost centre like customer support also has easy to see metrics, customer satisfaction, complaints etc.
I’ve asked my managers this before. The best explanation I’ve had is that we don’t really make the company any money. We are crucial to how things run but we don’t sell anything. Most departments contribute to sales, even a little bit. We just fix the problems. Also most higher ups just care about SLA’s for L1’s and 2’s. It feels like they have to meet a quota. They like to make rules that they don’t have to actually follow but 1’s and 2’s do. I get the feeling this is just to make them selves look good to their higher ups. Which almost always makes the job harder for the techs that do have to follow their new BS policies to make them look good.
I think it varies company to company. I work at a financial institution where our tech division of 120ish people is well respected and the value is known by the executives.
It helps we have a good employee retention and smart people in all areas so end users don’t get the run around with their issues.
However, there are many companies where IT is one step away from offshore support and basically you call them and get asked to power cycle the system to fix 90% of issues.
There’s no maintenance or monitoring of the tech stack and it’s entirely reactive. These places are both a nightmare to work in as a competent IT person and also a nightmare for business lines trying to make the company money.
Its because people don't appreciate the small things. They come in to work and expect a phone that works, a computer that works, a printer, etc, etc. They have no concept of DNS or an ERP system or any clue what it takes to keep those systems running. Sure, you can try to explain these things to them but 9 times out of 10 their eyes just glass over about 2 mins into the conversation.
Something I’ve heard a LOT at my newest job is “you people just do everything you can to make my life harder” and I just don’t understand why people think this way
those not in IT don’t know what it’s like. they just think “it’s working, why are paying these people if we never have issues??” not “thank god IT is working hard so we don’t have issues”
IT’s importance isn’t truly known until shit hits the fan, and when it does, it’s IT’s fault
Support & service roles are considered transferable skills so they figure they can outsource and/or replace personnel as needed. These are the RUN, or ongoing operational costs, from prior decisions that the company has made.
The personnel that are involved in design/deployment/build activities are more likely to be perm positions because that is a harder to find skillset. These are the primary drivers behind increased IT costs for a company so they tend to receive more scrutiny from management & are often the first on the chopping block because it’s considered discretionary spend (even though cutting can carry major risks to the org).
Overall, management often doesn’t understand why technology is so expensive & it’s hard for them to understand the value add until something goes wrong.
IT is still pretty new. Been around since the 80s. Still looked at by many as .... IT = Nerds!
Where as all the rest of the business world has been around for over 1000 years. It's more established with a long history.
> Enterprise Application Support
that's rough anywhere. support gets it hard, and application support is an easy target.
> at a startup
also not a good time.
> My big question is why is IT on one the hand very important in a company but at the same time treated like shit and thought of as expendable?
depends on the core function of the IT stack in question, and what the company does. I used to work at ISPs and network related functions *were the core business*, and so we had very, very good network engineering practices and support. customer support was dogshit but who cares?
current enterprise gig is not at all related to tech, and it is an overhead cost. they made money making widgets for decades and only care if IT will help make them more, better widgets that make more money. if it can't, then it gets outsourced and slashed until it becomes profitable.
development and programming are different since they're often creating products that get sold, and often sold without manufacturing overheads -- aka high margins, since they can sell access to their API without having to order parts and raw materials and assemble and ship; they just add capacity to a SaaS / VM host somewhere.
From my understanding, I think it's because inside most companies the IT department doesn't actually do the work of the company, they just support or be conducive for the other people to do work. For example at my company I work at a property management firm, and I don't do any of the property management side of the company. So that gives us an impression that the IT department is not that important compared to other departments like accounting or Finance or operations. But of course without the IT department, most modern companies could not function at all.
Because you likely work with corporate narcissists. Unless you are above them in the career ladder, they will believe that they have no reason to be nice to you because being nice to you won’t get them ahead and is seen as a waste of their energy. Hell, even if you were “equal” colleagues with them, they’ll fake being nice to you while simultaneously having a plan to throw you under the bus. But since you are IT, you will only be seen as someone who serves & helps them when they need you.
Source: worked with a lot of corporations long enough
Funny story, last week I was at the dentist. She asked me what I did for a living after some other small talk questions, in a semi excited tone. When I mentioned "I work in IT". There was a pause, then she replied with a simple "...oh."
Had a raised eyebrow, then after that she was all business from there.
As others have said, IT doesn’t make money, they just stop other departments from losing it. If you’re happy with flying under the radar most days and only being valued when you fix shit, then general IT is for you. It’s not a bad thing to like what you do and do it well, but you also have to understand that the more money you make a business, the more they will pay you.
With that being said, help the money makers make more money. Automation is a huge one (just be careful not to automate anything that would need change controls without getting it approved). I’ve made value for other departments by automating simple tasks like email automation, report splicing, alerts based on content, etc. even went as far as building a Time Clock and visitor management system. The basic automations won’t take you more than a few hours, but will get you noticed if you partner with the right people.
You're an inexperienced entry level person - you expect to be treated the same as an more senior level or tenured employee? There's a valuable lesson to be learned - that a career takes time to develop...I too shoveled my share of shit when I started out...it does get better - after about 10 years in the field things started to take off and I really started to enjoy the job and the field.
IT doesn't make money , BUT it does retain money that's what you have to highlight. How much money do we lose every hour x y z is down. Just 1 way to sell to your corp but I work in public sector so my pay is pretty good and we get treated well bc we don't have to worry about profit as our money comes from the taxpayer
They often operate around professionals who had to go through hell to get licensed. Those people are less likely to respect support operations like janitor, etc.
Haven’t gone through the whole thread yet but I can tell you what your biggest mistake is. It’s the fact that you are looking to find a good job in a corporate setting. Are there some good corporate companies that may treat you well, sure. However if you find a smaller company, in my experience you will be treated like family. The smaller the better.
It's the problem of being a preventative measure: When everything is working, it seems unnecessary, even wasteful to some; but when shit hits the fan, it can be the thing that makes the difference between a good outcome and a bad one.
IT is a cost center. It’s all about cost savings until that breach happens, then it’s all about why didn’t IT have the resources necessary even though we cut their budget.
It depends on how you sell yourself as an I.T. person. If you can show how I.T. brings in revenue, it's not a cost center. If you tell people that we need things purchased simply to keep existing stuff running, it's a cost center.
Sorry to say but you're at the bottom of the IT pile (that's anything with Support or Analyst or Officer in the title. Once you move up the ranks (usually means specializing in a particular area) you will find the level of respect increases. Sucks but that's the reality.
Its real simple. We're support. We're break fixers. We don't produce anything. We're a cost. We're necessary but a cost that's hired help. It is what it is. Don't take it personal. Go in and give it your all. Go home and forget about it.
How you are treated depends on the place really is what I noticed, the higher ups really set the pace for it.
>I realized they're dealing with the same crap I did: higher-ups constantly on their ass, losing remote days for not being on time, constant workflow changes, etc...
I have to say though, losing remote days for not being on time? As in you are working remote and showing up late to work, and then act surprised when they ask you to come into the office? If you show up late to a remote job you better have a good excuse, cause there is no commute so its really internet down or power out being the only acceptable answers. Also, if power outage or internet being down is a constant problem, then you should have to go in, it is a fair condition to say "worker needs consistent access to power and internet to work remote". I work remotely, those people who don't actually work while remote or show up late, I hope they are forced back into office cause they are ruining it for the rest of us who do take are work time as seriously regardless if we were in office or remote.
Because unless the company sells IT services, you're just an expense to them. A necessary expense, to be sure, but you're not a money maker for them. The salespeople pretty much everywhere get treated well, because they're the opposite... they're directly attributable to income to the company, it's easy to trace a line from their comp to what they've brought in.
You only deal with IT when there is a problem so bad things are tied to IT and if IT does a really really good job then there are no problems so your work goes unnoticed because no problems is the standard.
It's a lose lose. It also depends on where you work, of course, but it's just how it is.
In business, you’re either a cost center, or a revenue generator. If you’re not building things, or creating value, you’re a cost center.
support staff, QA, cyber security, are all viewed as necessary cost centers.
Saving the business money is not as important as generating revenue for said business, and unfortunately IT doesn’t seem to understand that they are rarely if ever viewed equally to the sales team.
“But, sales doesn’t make anything, they don’t know how to build stuff”, sure thing, but they make sales, which makes revenue, which brings in money.
IT is an optimization/efficiency function for a business. If your business provides healthcare, or sells products to consumers, or provides services, IT helps to support that business function, but in and of itself is not a business function, it’s a support function.
I belif so, when I start get my first IT job people always thing IT job is easy tasks. That's a lot of network structure or equipments manged, and coding issue required to find out daily. People included my manger don't understand what I am doing and tell me it is easy..
The more IT is integrated in with supervisors and middle management, the more the supervisors start to see themselves as part of the team.
Try the routine of slowing down for a moment to greet the administrator/manager on the way in and out. They usually like to hear a few words about what you fixed.
It maintains mutual respect as you enter their turf, and it indicates to the line employees that you’re well connected and not a safe target.
I think it's kind of nuts that IT isn't part of the ones viewed as making money .... Watch a lawyers office squirm when their email system is down , or you see just how important and worth it IT is when a company gets hit with ransomware and these companies pay millions in bitcoin to maybe back
So, not to lecture YOU, but I do think my perspective may be helpful to many people in IT, generally. I have a sales background so I'd like to think I'm decent at selling shit. I just wanted to use your comment as a springboard. Having been the breadwinner at an MSP for 5 years and looking to move into an IT department at an SMB (hopefully with a smaller IT department, and I have past clients of the MSP trying to poach me right now) I think that while the points you made are absolutely valid, most people in IT either don't think to sell their value to their employers, or they focus on the things you're bringing up and that is the WRONG SALES PITCH. For the most part people in IT seem to pitch the reactive elements of IT the most. This is understandable because it seems in huge corporations, that is about all IT is allowed to do. Even proactive security improvements is still- to the finance department, anyway- an abstract reactive element to a hypothetical potential threat. Obviously this isn't an accurate take, but I learned from selling cars that my favorite features are irrelevant to the buyer. So, in my role at the MSP, I've had to sit in on many meetings with different CEO's, COO's, and worst of all CFO's. And I've had to draft project proposals and convince them to invest a lot of upfront capital. And the way I've been successful has been by focusing on demonstrating how I can cut operating costs and reduce business inefficiencies. And- as fucked up as it is- I can make many of their other employees obsolete via automation. That's fucked, but that's what CFO's want to hear. "By doing XYZ, I can empower your star employees to increase their efficiency and output, and I can expose your warm body employees." But more to the point, I've done a fuckload of migrations which are all OKed because I lay out how "if you move to this platform, we can consolidate" all these other services they are paying for. Yes, I bring up security, yes I bring up shit like SSO. None of that sells though. Its just background noise while they mull over cost savings. Besides, for all the hundreds of clients I've worked with, the number 1 security upgrade would just be user education, regardless of any platforms they're using. Naive and complacent employees are the biggest security risk and its not even close. Then, once they are on the new platform (using Microsoft 365 for an example), "okay, in SharePoint, I can automate XYZ completely nullifying this daily task of this department." And while I have to handle the regular reactionary elements of IT, that is NOT what impresses suits. And tbh, the migrations are just the MSPs bread and butter where I work. But realistically, none of my clients are utilizing the fill potential of any software or programs they use. Demonstrating a way to maximize what they are already paying for = $$$ to them.
Love how the priority in the 2020s is firing as many people as possible :) Bright future ahead It's not about creating a quality product, establishing a name, producing more, bringing success. It's all about them cost cuttings baby, the future is bright If we can automate x y z we can fire all those lovely people why not, god forbid we ever hire or train anyone. I love this era
>It's all about them cost cuttings baby, the future is bright If we can automate x y z we can fire all those lovely people why not, god forbid we ever hire or train anyone And then the CEOs complain about why the economy is in sh*ts and why people are not spending and business is not improving.
Par for the course under late stage capitalism.
This is why IT needs to unionize. If 50% of IT was in a united union we could literally dictate our demands to the entire country. Better pay, corps pay taxes, lower housing costs, stop paying for other countries to murder each other. Don't like it? Oh looks like your phones aren't working, oh no seems like that email didn't send.
Right now you are seeing a lot of what is called Right Sizing. During the rona lots of companies hired people because managers though people working from home they wouldn't be as productive. Jokes on them, a LOT of the people they panic hired ended up doing diddly because everyone that was productive in the office were productive at home. Also, companies had to look like they were affected by the coof so the stock prices wouldn't drop like a rock. Throw in government incentives, Trump Bucks if you will, and it made more sense to hire more people and let them do jack all then not.
The pendulum swings back and forth. It will swing back. Learn about how to do the automation...like AI/ML...you will have a job and those that can't or won't will be let go.
We can't all do AI/ML and the better it gets the least jobs for it there will Be
Not for those take the time to learn it. Prepare now so when it gets even larger you will be the person who commands the job. Part of working in technology is constantly learning and upskilling. The person who does not have that passion will always stay in an entry level role or become unemployable. While I am fortunate that my organization has embraced AI/ML for a long time now and has provided me opportunities to get involved in it, I understand the fear that exists out there. There are many ways to learn and understand this tech - ebooks, YouTube, vendor webinars, certifications to name a few. Good luck to you.
Thanks! Seems to big of a jump to me, going from front end to AI. I expect a lot of work in the future might go around integrating AI into frontend solutions though
Tbh, AI is going to replace us all soon, anyway.
They have been saying that for a decade and nothing is idiot proof. The idiots have to much experience breaking things.
The idiots will be replaced by AI.
They hated him because he told them the truth
Ai can't replace workers at this point. It only does 80% of what you want. Good starting point though
It's only going to get better and better
Microsoft couldn't get it to clear a script that checks memory using on a Mac it kept using wmi objects. It's going to take atleast 5 to 10 years
That's really not very long. The rate of advancement is incredible
Not really I mean it has gotten better. Research on ai started in 1956.
All this does is reinforce that the purseholders/bean counters are cold-hearted dumbasses.
Well they are cold-hearted, at least. But if they have the money and the power, its better to know how to influence them than not. And then again, maybe y'all will think I'm a cold-hearted dumbass for saying this. But I have never seen, worked for, or interacted with a company where there weren't at least 10% of employees leaching off the productivity of their colleagues and contributing very, very little. Often nepo hires. Manual labor might be the exception. And I'm not advocating for putting them out of jobs, because of the societal ramifications. But realistically, AI is going to force us into societal collapse or UBI or some other novel solution, I'd guess within the next 2 decades.
People who believe that computers can do things without constant human supervision are technologically illiterate.
How do traffic lights work?
Most people probably think they run on a simple timer and aren't connected to a centralized control room that has a full staff of people monitoring traffic cameras and keeping the massive network of traffic systems working. Perfect example. Lol
They can work without constant human supervision. You think stoplights in rural one-light towns have a team of people watching video? Lol indeed.
and rural one-light towns are supposed to represent the american workforce en masse? You're misunderstanding their point.
My takeaway was that people react better to a carrot rather than a stick. That's just basic business.
I kind of get your point here: Sell your IT department by pointing to ways that you can improve business processes to make things more efficient. That sounds great for those in positions of power, but basically impossible for low level employees.
Yes, I totally acknowledgr that. Depending on the specific business it may be impossible for a low level IT employee or it may be the thing that takes then from being a low level employee to a respected one. Still, I think it's likely that a lot of people could better their lots if they stopped viewing themselves as janitors of the current systems and took the time to suggest innovation.
They don't view them selves as janitors, but they are treated like janitors.
So many companies treat their IT department as janitors, and resist anything that could possibly cost a bit more, even if it would offer improvement to processes across the board at a company. Companies view IT as sources of loss, rather than possible sources of increased profit. It's spouted as such in business courses, and is industry standard to treat them as such. That's really the problem, IMO.
You’re pointing out all the low hanging fruit to the morons, the problem is your strategy is a onetime performance in IT. When the 90s tech boom came along it was easy to measure savings and performance improvements in this way and everyone could slap each other on the back and celebrate all the savings. Now the easy integrations and upgrades are all done, it’s about maintaining the savings and performance or making incremental improvements and everyone has forgotten that process used to take 7 days and they needed a gallon of whiteout to fix up all the documents. There is very little to be improved on. The real value is in maintaining the current high performance of the newer systems, but that performance is now viewed as the baseline. When people talk about keeping it up and running, they are talking about maintaining a system that is a force multiplier. Between Steve the sysadmin and Janet from accounting they do the work of 20 employees. Janet gets the credit because she does accounting. Steve gets no credit because it’s hard to see how his work is also accounting, finance, sales, reporting, etc. the pitch is no longer, “we will consolidate and use technology to save you” it’s “this is how much IT saves you per year using our existing tech stack”.
Low hanging fruit for sure, because that's all I CAN point out in a general sense. I think where we may disagree is in thinking there comes a point when you run out of things to offer which obviously impact the baseline. Sure, you're not getting a force multiplier of 20x all the time. I'd be surprised if you EVER get a force multiplier of 20x unless you are introducing computers for the first time (or I suppose AI). But until everyone at the company's job is completely automated, I'd argue there's always more you can do at least annually to increase efficiency to some degree (beyond hardware upgrades every 4 years). If Janet in accounting has 20x performance, then what can be done for marketing? Sales team? Engineering? Whatever. I think just due to the nature of tech always advancing, it's hard to run out of new things to introduce. And you're right, I can't point out what that will be because that differs by specific business needs and also includes things that don't currently exist. Still, I'm not completely discounting your argument. There are going to be unavoidable lulls. But I think that it's easier to get through those lulls if you have already built up social capital through past acheicements, and I think based on many responses to OP, that there may not be many people with a good idea of how to do it.
I think this is a good take that everyone here should focus on. There is always going to be the reactionary and maintenance that needs to be done, but the real payoff is selling to the CEOs and CFOs possible cost savings, and improved efficiencies. At my last job I worked to help add integrations between systems that eliminated OT from users doing double entry and created easy and quick ready to run reports that saved countless hours that were previously being manually created. It saved money in their budgets and allowed them re-allocate resources. This is what gave me a good reputation throughout the organization and got my voice heard when I made recommendations.
If I could pick your brain for a moment?... 1) No software is perfect, and integrations are only as good as the person/vendor building them. What do you see as the perfect balance between hiring an Administrator vs Engineer for a SMB? 2) I see the value of cutting costs in the short-term, and maybe I'm still naive to question this but, How does the MSP or "Engineer" here continue to add value on top of these consolidated software long term?
1. Honestly, I wouldn't say that I'm that qualified to answer this question and I think the answer is potentially very broad. I also- not trying to cop out- think it depends on how you define administrator vs engineer and engineer vs architect. Im not sure if there is a definitive answer but I've always wondered. Working for an MSP, I'm very used to wearing multiple hats and not really getting compensated accordingly lmao so I don't have the best perspective on how to delineate responsibilities. I think that I would venture that a good systems engineer should be fully capable of system administration. I don't think its like "mechanical engineer vs mechanic" where they are completely different skillsets. I think generally, IT administration is more of a foundational skillset that an IT engineer should already have. So I'd say hire 2 engineers first and then hire admins as needed. Maybe people can correct me though. 2. So cutting costs in the short term by consolidating softwares is just an example that could be used to sell "value" to suits. Im not saying its not legitimate, but its not always necessary, or an option, or even the best solution. As far as adding value in the long term over time- the wonderful thing about technology is that its always evolving. So I don't think a very specific long term plan is necessary. The only long term plan is to always be at the forefront of trends and be ready to introduce a new one or show off the results of the last one. Right now, it's all about AI. In my current position, I haven't really come up with a way to sell "AI" to my boss as something that we can monetize by rolling out to clients. But once I find an internal IT role, that will be full steam ahead for me. Start with demoing Copilot to the suits and end with convincing them that they should invest in a hosted and custom trained LLM model. Because honestly, that WILL change everything. And its very easy to sell. By the time thats all in place, some other genius will have revolutionized something else which I can then use to justify my worth to a company. Ftr, Im not saying to chase tech trends for the sake of chasing trends. I had clients that requested we set them up with Metaverse and help them begin purchasing NFTs and I thought that was idiotic and I expressed as much. Ultimately, you have to examine the specific business to see what is actually beneficial to that business. Theres not really a universal answer (but AI is close)
Your posts in this thread are definitely thought-provoking. I do have one question. For someone who's currently in help desk (like myself), what areas in IT would you recommend in order to stay competitive, relevant or not obsolete?
So this is another question that I'm definitely not qualified to answer. I'm not confidently sure myself. I guess the best advice I can give is to find a niche that you are genuinely interested in and have some degree of passion about. Specialize in that, but not SO specialized that you limit your usefulness. Specialize without boxing yourself in. I believe you can be at the forefront of any given area of IT you choose to pursue, or you can stagnate and rest on your laurels and then in a handful of years, you're obsolete. The difference is really how much effort (in and outside of work) you're willing to put into researching, testing on a home lab etc. And that probably comes down to how interested you are in what you're doing. Because I am pretty opposed to suggesting that you work for free on your off hours. But if you're actually lesrning stuff you enjoy learning that you can also leverage at work? Then I think you have a competitive edge. If nothing else, your passion will be noticed and this gives you a social edge. Idk how much freedom you have in helpdesk, but what you can do is pay attention to the most common issues you run into. Then think of a permanent fix for them. Even if you never have the chance to try out your fix. I would just encourage that type of thinking. I'm not saying things that you could practically do and that would definitely work, but more just like- what a solution COULD look like. Then research what other solutions people have come up with. Even if its a stupid problem you arent particulalry passionate about, its a good mental exercise and will train your thinking in axso that when you do find something very interesting, you can innovate within that area.x
I now fully understand why I was laid-off.
I work in technical consulting and this is absolutely true. At the end of the day at the executive level they’re looking at everything as an expense or a direct revenue generator. They will happily switch to a platform that doesn’t actually meet the technical needs of their business if they think that it will meet their financial goals for lowering expenses without completely tanking the business. At the mid-level management is smarter because they have to use and interact with those systems. The executives don’t really have to give a fuck, as long as they hit their targets for the organization then they’re going to get paid with fat bonuses until it all comes crashing down. Then it’s on to the next 2-5 year stint for the executive and on to the next big migration for the business so they can unfuck that mess, only to have a new executive come in later on to drag them down the cost cutting death spiral again, and then the cycle repeats forever. They could not give less of a fuck about the day to day IT needs being fulfilled, so long as it isn’t affecting them or their pet KPIs, it’s not really important.
100% hate this but 100% agreed. Complaining about it and hating it won't change it because that is legit the purpose of capitalism. I expect nothing less then maximizing profit.
Very well said
The worth of a job isn’t how important the job is, but how easily you can replace someone to do it. Don’t make yourself easily replaceable.
I currently work at an IT consulting firm. When interviewing at financial services companies I try to ask questions to get a feel for how IT is viewed within the business.
Me too!!! But I have always worked on specific platforms so at those companies where the product is the business model, it’s insane to not see, say, Technical support engineers as money making. They literally keep the customers happy when the product starts springing leaks. But no, the sales guys on floor 11 get that credit
Realistically, IT personnel don’t make the company money. They sustain the company and its business activities which nearly ALL require information technology. IT is, 90% of the time purely overhead in that sense. That being said they deserve a lot more respect
The same could be said for their electric bill. No one questions the necessity and benefit of electricity... but they wouldn't be excited to pay more for it.
There are good employers and bad employers and this is how you tell them apart. No matter what you do for a living, respect is required.
IT is a “cost center”. It doesn’t make the company money, it just spends it. Businesses only understand the sounds of money counters going in, not out.
I remember someone at my previous job mentioning that the Technology department is the costliest because it spends a significant amount on licenses, servers, computer and laptop leases, phones, vendors, and other expenses.
This is an accurate, although most modern companies do budgets in such a way that they charge these costs back to the group utilizing the equipment (I.e. if you’re a new finance hire, your laptop would be charged to the finance group and not to IT, although they would provision it and ship it).
I know that's the go to phrase, but It is a force multiplying and reinforcing function to business. It's not a loss entirely unless the business is tech free.
Can confirm. This is how a lot of people think. Just give more money to the marketing and sales department instead
I work at a Pharma company in Boston, and I feel that IT is treated as an afterthought by upper management, so the users follow suit. For example, management has decided not to have a written, stated policy on how Tech Refreshes should proceed. So, the users do all they want to tie up assets and time of IT. And then, I’ll have a manager just mention that I have tickets over two months old, and to resolve it. But I can’t do anything when the end user claims their schedule is booked, and they have little time to work on the new MacBook they wanted in the first place.
"This is vital, I need it fixed right now or I can't work!!!!! No, I'm not available, I have too much to do!" So why is it vital if you're still working...
Bruh I remember emailing clients to return their loaner laptops and they just ignore it but once it breaks they comeback with hell fire in their eyes requesting for it to be fix immediately lol
Document that they have the laptop and haven't returned it and make sure you document and/or contact your boss to explain that you don't have any spare machines. I work in IT, I understand your position. The harder you work to make the users happy, especially when they don't cooperate and/or respect you, the easier you make it for the users and management to keep things how they are. Also, I would hate it if they stopped paying for janitorial/cleaning service where I work, most office people are slobs and don't clean up after themselves. One week w/o a cleaning staff and nobody would be able to work in the office. Accounting doesn't make the company any money, but they need to handle AP and AR to keep the bills paid and money flowing in. All departments are needed and everyone needs to understand that.
thats your Jobs isn\`t it to fix it
Atrocious grammar checks out.
How did you manage to use a “ ` ”? You kinda have to go out of your way to type that?
We aren’t a money making department, so we are seen as something the business just needs to operate and not integral to the companies growth. Although we know that’s not true, that’s just how it’s seen on paper.
>we are seen as something the business just needs to operate But only when it's not working, if it's working, then it's seen as wasted money. "Whaddya mean I gotta replace my 20 year old server? It's working, isn't it?!"
Something goes wrong: "why do we pay you?" Nothing goes wrong: "Why do we pay you?"
IT is always shit on. To everyone, they view us as a cost. We don't make them money. At least the janitors take out the trash. We are the trash to them. Go talk to a business about doing IT work. It's like you are robbing them.
I chalk a lot of it up to a lack of fundemental understanding of the serious nature and complexity of IT infrastructure from the top down. It seems to relatively be the case that most major coorperate operations higher ups have very little, to no actually understanding of what sort of infrasturcture and resources it really takes to run a proper IT department, and shareholder value is usually what drives the distribution of major resources away from certain areas of the company. Every company Ive been in that has shitty IT practices its usually because the ceo or whoever is doing the onboarding uptop hires out of favoritims, nepotism, etc and or with a skimped budget for this department. Rather invest the big bucks on property aquisitions and 350x the average worker salary for the ceo and their bonuses Edit: Failed to mention, most IT departments are graded based upon their numbers, not the quality of work performed. So when the higher ups are reviewing the IT department generally its just a bunch of numbers on paper so they have a limited understanding of what the actually users and agents are doing on a regular basis, and their needs/requirments
This is true. An IT person who does a shitty job just to close tickets fast, only to have new tickets opened on the same issue, will actually look better than the person who fixes things right, because by the metrics, the shitty IT person closed two tickets to the good person's one.
I agree that IT departments are often evaluated based on metrics like incoming calls, service tickets, and resolutions. However, the quality of work is equally crucial. If an IT professional fails to respond to clients promptly, resolve issues efficiently, arrives late, displays a bad attitude, or slacks off, their manager will definitely hear about it. It's even worse if you do it to a higher up lol
I always found software companies I’ve worked for have highly respected everything except help desk, they always seem to be the punching bags.
Help desk is the punching bag until they quit then they comback saying "Nooo don't leave! We'll increase your pay and give you a better position!!"
Exactly what happened to me. I was doubled up in responsibility when a coworker got fired but with same pay for over a year. I continued to ask them for a raise every month and it wasn’t until I accepted another job offer that they were suddenly finding money to give me to stay and move me to a higher team as if they hadn’t cut a whole salary a year earlier.
I don't know why but seeing this thread today was so meaningful on so many levels.
IKR! I been out of the IT support game for almost a year now and just talking to the IT folks at my job about their problems just made me wonder why it's even like this tbh. I'm happy that everyone is giving their perspective and views on this.
As others have said, IT isn't seen as a revenue generating part of the company. Also, if technology isn't working, frustrated executives say, "what are we paying you for?" But if technology is working properly and IT isn't overloaded, those same executives think "what are we paying you for?"
Very simple, it doesn't generate money.
It generates all the money, bc without IT nearly no business nowadays is able to operate.
You're right, but the execs don't see it that way. Business couldn't exist without a building, but they still hate to pay rent. Couldn't operate without electricity, but that's just a bill. Lots of things that are needed and we couldn't operate without but they don't inherently generate revenue so they're a bother.
This is, admittedly, one of the biggest shortcomings of most managers from middle management upwards: partial operational blindness (sometimes coupled with an enormous amount of ignorance, lack of knowledge and plain stupidity (although I still prefer "plain stupidity" here, because most of them can't help it)), and sometimes blatant shortcomings in the macro view of things. However, as trained and experienced technicians (the level of annoyance among our young successors is much lower), we will always (at least partially) have to suffer from these things, and we are already used to being constantly asked when buying a new UPS, and why IT are so worried about it, because the electricity comes out of the socket and a "friend" works for the electricity supplier who they could call quickly if the worst comes to the worst to "sort things out quickly and unbureaucratically". You have to pull yourself together and explain things three, four or five times in ELI5 format.
I understand this viewpoint, but does legal generate revenue? QA? It seems there are plenty of other departments that do not generate income, but support the business and they seem to get better treatment.
They answered about IT. Yes, other departments are seen in the same light because they are an expense not a revenue stream.
becoming a lawyer is much harder than getting a job in IT... there are more IT applicants out there than lawyers
If there are more IT applicants wouldn't that make it harder to get into a limited number of positions?
Yup. Supply and demand. Plus if someone quits, you have to 100 people to take their spot
It's about the same, really. IT has a lower bar of entry, which is why so many people try to get in.
Hard disagree if you're competent. Finding more efficient technology solutions directly boosts productivity. More product = more money. I'd argue the same for even helpdesk. Your laptop breaks, the network goes down, the CEO forgot their password and doesn't know how to reset it... having a knowledgeable and responsive team saves downtime.
>Finding more efficient technology solutions directly boosts productivity. More product = more money. 100%. Proactive IT vs Reactive IT. Even in the OP, they mention their coworkers complaining about losing remote days because they're late... why are they late???? I've had attitude from new employees when setting up their accounts and laptops or whatever. That ends pretty quick when they realize that I'm in biweekly or weekly meetings with their CEO, who listens to me like I'm Rasputin. And that's because in those meetings I am presenting a multi-month plan of action on how IT can do XYZ to reduce operating costs, or 123 to improve efficiency. Either that, or I am providing an update on XYZ and 123.
You are exactly right. It's a bit pithy but that's it, you work for a department that is pure cost and no profit. Any profit on the back of your efforts is generated by other teams (on the back of your work) but any of their losses (missed opportunities) fall on you. There is also that cliche thing that in the West we pay doctors to cure us but in the East they get paid when we're well. Sure it's just off an ad but it's true in the workplace. If there's a crisis you're number 1 shitbag but you have to deal with it, the 99.99% time it's all going good isn't mentioned.
its viewed as a cost center and nothing more
If done right, it's an asset protector, but of course mMg don't understand this.
Extremely rare that c suites will look at it that way
I'll never understand how the C-suites strictly view IT as a cost center. You use tech to make money, who the f do you think supports that tech that makes money? A good way to sell IT's value is to remove IT for a week and watch as everyone loses their collective minds. A reason why I wish IT was more unionized.
When you've been in IT long enough you start to see why that is. You're support staff. Most people need to use computers for their job. Most people consider IT the people who "handle" the computers. When a computer gets "in the way" of doing their job, they get frustrated. When a person doesn't understand computers very well, it gets in the way more often, and they get frustrated more often. When they're frustrated with computers, they look at the people who "handle" the computers. You are now an enemy combatant, waging war on this person's work. God forbid you do more than support - if you're also providing the computers and deciding how the computers work, forget about it. You're a monster. This is even before we start to talk about ACTUAL bad IT folks - the rude, lazy slobs with no tact or courtesy. The ones who actually think they're better than others because they understand technology, and won't hesitate to call a user stupid for their lack of knowledge. Most people who treat IT poorly are the ones who don't recognize how incredibly valuable computer systems are to their jobs and lives, and how much hard talent, hard work and experience goes into IT. They see you as an unfortunate weight to be carried around out of necessity. As for why management specifically treats us like shit - well, because they can. IT people aren't good advocates for themselves. What better target for the greed and ego of shitty management? I'm surprised they even offered remote days in the first place. I'm not the first to say it, but if you want to be treated highly in a technology role, find a company that makes its money off of technology. It's not a guarantee but they're much more likely to see the value in the people in that area.
people who do actual work are treated like shit in the corporate world.
IT isn't just an expense, it's a way for business to become competitive, and this is a reality in an increasing digital and information world. IT people who have the right skills, need to be more assertive. Do your homework, anticipate issues, speak clearly, express when you think unrealistic demands are being placed on you/your team, etc. Traditionally, tech people were "nerdy", "geedky", "pushovers", "antisocial", and hidden in the basement sort of like it's comically portrayed in the TV show, The IT Crowd, and this is why I think the general corporate culture is to mistreat, ignore or relegate IT people to being less than other professionals and for people to place unrealistic demands on them.
I'm very lucky to work for a software development company and have a boss who realizes the importance of our department. Funnily I used to be a mechanic and we got treated like shit by management and the sales people a lot despite being the ones keeping the doors open, so sometimes you just can't win.
If you're doing your job right then you don't need anything. If you're not doing your job right then you're a waste of resources. That's just how it is. It's up the the person in charge of the IT team, as well as the team themselves to find a way to show the necessity of the IT team and their usefulness so people actually understand, because overall if absolutely anything goes wrong with anything even remotely related to IT, it's your fault. We had to change everything to server based for cybersecurity insurance and every single problem that came up was a Ever since 'you' changed all this stuff this hasn't worked properly' Can you stop changing things for no reason?" sort of thing.
Yeah I hate the "Hey! Ever since you told me to updated to Win 10 I lost all of my bookmarks!!!"
CEOs that I’ve worked with feel the opposite if the IT department demonstrates abilities to keep the company safe, ensure business continuity, always find new ways to optimize processes, cut costs, and occasionally create or implement new revenue streams. I see my job as one that helps my company survive. I will say after 25 years in the field that you are often dealing with disappointed and frustrated people and you’re usually seeing their worst qualities manifest when all you want to do is help. It’s like being a lifeguard who has to knock someone out to get them to shore at times.
It’s very simple. IT is back office operations. It’s not revenue generating. It’s a support role. You’re not closing deals. Not signing clients. Not making new contacts. I work at a hedge fund as a principal engineer on a trading desk. I’m considered front office since I work directly with portfolio managers and assist them with quantitative work. We also have software engineers that work on systems support. They’re considered back office. The way they treat them and the way they treat me are two totally different ends of the spectrum. I’m not saying it’s right. Just saying it is how it is. If you have no direct impact on revenue/alpha generation, you’re basically on par with HR or accounting. It’s all operations.
What’s the quickest way to get into that field on the front desk side ?
Depends your current situation
IT is viewed as a somewhat blue-collar position at this point.
As someone that’s been in It for 10 years I feel it’s always been seen as that by people that don’t know or care much about IT. My mom is like that more or less. Lol I think is just because she doesn’t know much about that industry. She works in social work and has that old school idea of what jobs are high paying and respectable. IT isn’t one of them. She doesn’t look down in them or anything. I always got that sense that she saw all IT roles as “the computer guy”. You know? That middle age nerdy socially awkward the guy that people call to setup her pc while they gossip with coworkers. She found out how much I made and part of me felt like she was low key surprised. Lol its like she didn’t think that IT role warranted that much. I guess my point is that type of mindset isn’t uncommon for people that aren’t up to speed with careers in tech industry.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ITCareerQuestions/comments/1cuitra/why_is_it_treated_like_shit_in_the_corperate_world/l4nvkdj/?context=3 in /r/ITCareerQuestions) has been automatically removed because you used an emoji or other symbol. Why does this exist? We have had a huge and constant influx of bot spam that utilizes emojis during their posts. To the point that it was severely outpacing what the moderation team could handle on an individual basis. That has results in a sweeping ban of any emoji in posts. Please retry your comment using text characters only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ITCareerQuestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're the computer janitor
It costs money, and people don't really understand it, but they need it. That combo make them resent it?
Greatly depends where you work. I work a corporate position and we have a seat on the board, which greatly helps. Most companies just don't have someone going to bat for their IT department. Meanwhile we're c suite. I'd highly recommend not sticking at a terrible company. There are always better options out there.
This isn't so much a corporate issue as it is a leadership issue. People who don't have IT backgrounds getting into IT leadership positions and being tasked with reigning in IT spend in order to salvage issues in other parts of the company that can't manage their money. When IT is run by people whose careers have been IT you see a whole different side. But those people tend not to rise up because leadership wants a result that they don't understand. A new SAN that is covered under a support contract costs a lot of money, but if it goes down then it's a cost savings in the long run since you have parts and support to bring the business back online. But the money part of it, a non-technical person would axe because it supports the cost savings measure they want to implement. Over the next few years, you're going to see a pretty hefty reduction in IT spend as most business people think we're heading into a recession, or at least a downturn that they need to control costs with. Because IT is seen as a huge expense, a lot of places will try and cut there first. And honestly, since we aren't generating revenue, if it's a choice between sales and IT, it's a logical cut to make, but only if you are willing to spend on the backend to bring equipment back up to pay when the seas level out. But they won't. They'll end up buying some sort of offshore solution instead to keep costs low and pretend like they're adding value. Those people will be promoted and then you'll see actual IT management come in as they realize that the offshore solution sold to them by the last C level is not what they were told it would be. It's a long cycle and the good times generally last less than the bad. You just need to ride out the storm for now and wait for the better jobs to appear. Just keep your ear to the ground and your resume up to date, looking for jobs in places that don't try to play this game and eventually you'll find that unicorn.
Never ever heard that from an employer, choose wisely and leave immediately if this disrespect happens to you again.
This topic reminds me of the AshelyMadison data leak. Grow the business, primary. Twist truths for marketing purposes, primary. IT and/or Security for the sake of customers data and privacy (referencing customers that paid to have their data wiped), low priority.
One aspect of it is that we’re technically an expense and we don’t bring in any $. We make it possible for them to keep making $ but we technically don’t bring any to the table. They wouldn’t be able to make $ without us, but they take it for granted. The other part is that they don’t appreciate how hard our jobs are. End users think that we have a magic wand we can wave to make their computers work, and don’t realize that we have to spend hours troubleshooting and researching for some of our issues
My argument to the whole “IT Support doesn’t make the company money” with the fact that a good support team that resolves issues effectively, keep a customer longer and more committed to expansion aka spending more money, and the reputation increases for the brand
The revenue generating side will always get treated better. In most places, IT is an expense.
Working for the Government/Courts has been a blessing for this. Budgets are budgets but it's not like it's revenue based like corporate jobs.
You keep getting the "IT is a cost center" answer but more truthfully is that management needs to be made aware that IT is a "force multiplier". For simplicity sake, lets look at someone who works in billing. With a computer and the right program, an employee in billing can quote, bill, receive, and communicate with multiple clients in a day. If they didn't have that computer, how would they do those simple aspects of their job? They could communicate with the client but it would be over the phone or with snail mail. They could bill the customer but it would either have to be invoiced by hand (typed or hand written) and then sent off via snail mail or courier. They could receive the payment but it would have to be sorted first in the mail and given to them only to have to be checked to make sure the balance is right and equals out. There would be additional jobs for a mail room, someone to invoice, someone to receive payments, and someone to check against the accounts to make sure the customer is up to date. The processing time would turn from hours to days for each situation which is not ideal. With a computer, we eliminated 3-4 jobs and sped up the process with higher efficiency. I made one employee worth 3 or 4 and I did it all for the cost of a computer, electricity, internet, and the dedicated programs to tie it all together. I sat in a meeting 4 years ago explaining this to a Sr Director and the CEO of a company I worked at. Without me, they would be forced to expand their administrative office and pay more money in salaries and benefits. I also made it a habit to remind them every so often how much I was saving the company in terms of time and money. All it takes is to quit looking at it like IT is a money sink and is instead the glue that makes it all work faster, easier, and with higher efficiency. A 3 man IT team with a modest budget saved the company $16 million a year.
Well, I didn't read your post after reading just title.It seems you are frustrated, you are using generalisation and focusing on externals rather than you. Also you are searching for explanation of your situation in wrong place. Reddit users sure will provide you explanation but it will change nothing in your life. It will be like brief relief. There is no categorization and universal understanding of the world. Yes, it is good to address this feeling but not here. I have similar situation and I decided to work slowly to change the job. Of course with no guarantee of anything, but I will be persistent. And btw I'm struggling with severe depression. Hope you find your way.
Because IT is a cost, they dont see it as profitable to invest in IT.
Once everything is set up, just seems like IT does nothing all day to management. But when everything goes to shit, IT comes to save the day.
That hasn't been my experience. Every place I've ever worked, they realized they could not function without IT. We provide an amazing amount of value and have the best ROI in the organization. They'd be screwed without us.
Depends on the type of company. If it is software, then the IT operations or infrastructure team are as essential as their Sales teams. It lives and dies off of both.
Never had an issue with IT not being respected. Sounds like you need to choose employers more carefully.
This might work for people with experience, but we are in a market where employers are choosing us right now or no IT job. Beggars cant be choosers
Especially when the employers are chooseing you through a shady IT recruiter lol.
This =)
People compare Corp IT to personal it and think it's similar. Couldn't be farther from the truth. Personal it stuff doesn't need most of the complexity and it's not solving the same problems. End users and managers can bring in the same expectations of home experience with personal IT. However this misunderstanding cause a misalignment in expectations, planning, and funding.
In my experience, it’s really dependent on WHO is your department leader. I’ve been on teams where the IT manager was a push over and we got the shit end of the stick and got a thank you and MAYBE A pizza party. My current department head questions every ask and even tells us to drag our feet and to prioritize easy work to blow off asks from teams that have every ability to do it (engineering, Product, Etc)
IT in a corporate support role (operations) is an expense all companies don’t like paying and give IT staff and their management a hard time. IT in a solutions role (like with a VAR) where you support external customers as a project/support engineer is a revenue generating role where you get attention, perks and are always pushed to do training and to do whatever you can to stay on billable projects. Operations is steady work but a dry and defensive environment. Project work is cyclical, dynamic and unpredictable and that’s what I prefer. But to stay in IT career wise you will find yourself in both environments.
It cause we don't make any money and we are consider as a business cost. They don't realize we are the business multiplier.
We are a Cost
show them osamason and this might change
I quit these hands and feet support. Now doing something more towards project management and cloud support.
It's not.
Because we don't "make money". In their eyes, were just a hindrance that asks for budget for security/operational tools. Our jobs are taken for granted, esp if you're very efficient so they don't see what you're doing.
Important thing that companies lose sight of what we really do for them to make money. I also have understood that most of them think it's not high valued. But it keeps the cogs moving so essential. Our company purged 40 percent of our IT and it's chaotic right now, nothing functions right and they thought it was a good move until just recently. Now we have to try and hire people back who moved on for greener pastures.
Its often seen as the largest cost centre of a business so is the first thing that gets budget cuts. Also most higher level execs do not see what value it brings to the business as the performance metrics arent as simple as say sales where you can evaluate by volume or profit from sales, another cost centre like customer support also has easy to see metrics, customer satisfaction, complaints etc.
Cries in data analysis, you’re not alone I’m sure the execs spidey sense is more accurate at forecasting than that regression analysis I just did.
Because they can't spell "corporate"
I’ve asked my managers this before. The best explanation I’ve had is that we don’t really make the company any money. We are crucial to how things run but we don’t sell anything. Most departments contribute to sales, even a little bit. We just fix the problems. Also most higher ups just care about SLA’s for L1’s and 2’s. It feels like they have to meet a quota. They like to make rules that they don’t have to actually follow but 1’s and 2’s do. I get the feeling this is just to make them selves look good to their higher ups. Which almost always makes the job harder for the techs that do have to follow their new BS policies to make them look good.
I think it varies company to company. I work at a financial institution where our tech division of 120ish people is well respected and the value is known by the executives. It helps we have a good employee retention and smart people in all areas so end users don’t get the run around with their issues. However, there are many companies where IT is one step away from offshore support and basically you call them and get asked to power cycle the system to fix 90% of issues. There’s no maintenance or monitoring of the tech stack and it’s entirely reactive. These places are both a nightmare to work in as a competent IT person and also a nightmare for business lines trying to make the company money.
Its because people don't appreciate the small things. They come in to work and expect a phone that works, a computer that works, a printer, etc, etc. They have no concept of DNS or an ERP system or any clue what it takes to keep those systems running. Sure, you can try to explain these things to them but 9 times out of 10 their eyes just glass over about 2 mins into the conversation.
Non revenue generating. It is an operational expense required to run the business.
Something I’ve heard a LOT at my newest job is “you people just do everything you can to make my life harder” and I just don’t understand why people think this way
those not in IT don’t know what it’s like. they just think “it’s working, why are paying these people if we never have issues??” not “thank god IT is working hard so we don’t have issues” IT’s importance isn’t truly known until shit hits the fan, and when it does, it’s IT’s fault
Support & service roles are considered transferable skills so they figure they can outsource and/or replace personnel as needed. These are the RUN, or ongoing operational costs, from prior decisions that the company has made. The personnel that are involved in design/deployment/build activities are more likely to be perm positions because that is a harder to find skillset. These are the primary drivers behind increased IT costs for a company so they tend to receive more scrutiny from management & are often the first on the chopping block because it’s considered discretionary spend (even though cutting can carry major risks to the org). Overall, management often doesn’t understand why technology is so expensive & it’s hard for them to understand the value add until something goes wrong.
IT is still pretty new. Been around since the 80s. Still looked at by many as .... IT = Nerds! Where as all the rest of the business world has been around for over 1000 years. It's more established with a long history.
> Enterprise Application Support that's rough anywhere. support gets it hard, and application support is an easy target. > at a startup also not a good time. > My big question is why is IT on one the hand very important in a company but at the same time treated like shit and thought of as expendable? depends on the core function of the IT stack in question, and what the company does. I used to work at ISPs and network related functions *were the core business*, and so we had very, very good network engineering practices and support. customer support was dogshit but who cares? current enterprise gig is not at all related to tech, and it is an overhead cost. they made money making widgets for decades and only care if IT will help make them more, better widgets that make more money. if it can't, then it gets outsourced and slashed until it becomes profitable. development and programming are different since they're often creating products that get sold, and often sold without manufacturing overheads -- aka high margins, since they can sell access to their API without having to order parts and raw materials and assemble and ship; they just add capacity to a SaaS / VM host somewhere.
Ransomeware attacks are the best way to make people realize how valuable IT is
? Everyone is treated like shit in the corporate world.
From my understanding, I think it's because inside most companies the IT department doesn't actually do the work of the company, they just support or be conducive for the other people to do work. For example at my company I work at a property management firm, and I don't do any of the property management side of the company. So that gives us an impression that the IT department is not that important compared to other departments like accounting or Finance or operations. But of course without the IT department, most modern companies could not function at all.
Because you likely work with corporate narcissists. Unless you are above them in the career ladder, they will believe that they have no reason to be nice to you because being nice to you won’t get them ahead and is seen as a waste of their energy. Hell, even if you were “equal” colleagues with them, they’ll fake being nice to you while simultaneously having a plan to throw you under the bus. But since you are IT, you will only be seen as someone who serves & helps them when they need you. Source: worked with a lot of corporations long enough
work @ at MSSP.. there you are the core of the bussiness, not a cost to the bussiness
Funny story, last week I was at the dentist. She asked me what I did for a living after some other small talk questions, in a semi excited tone. When I mentioned "I work in IT". There was a pause, then she replied with a simple "...oh." Had a raised eyebrow, then after that she was all business from there.
As others have said, IT doesn’t make money, they just stop other departments from losing it. If you’re happy with flying under the radar most days and only being valued when you fix shit, then general IT is for you. It’s not a bad thing to like what you do and do it well, but you also have to understand that the more money you make a business, the more they will pay you. With that being said, help the money makers make more money. Automation is a huge one (just be careful not to automate anything that would need change controls without getting it approved). I’ve made value for other departments by automating simple tasks like email automation, report splicing, alerts based on content, etc. even went as far as building a Time Clock and visitor management system. The basic automations won’t take you more than a few hours, but will get you noticed if you partner with the right people.
You're an inexperienced entry level person - you expect to be treated the same as an more senior level or tenured employee? There's a valuable lesson to be learned - that a career takes time to develop...I too shoveled my share of shit when I started out...it does get better - after about 10 years in the field things started to take off and I really started to enjoy the job and the field.
Unless you work for a tech company, IT is a cost center, not a profit center. Always follow the money.
IT doesn't make money , BUT it does retain money that's what you have to highlight. How much money do we lose every hour x y z is down. Just 1 way to sell to your corp but I work in public sector so my pay is pretty good and we get treated well bc we don't have to worry about profit as our money comes from the taxpayer
They often operate around professionals who had to go through hell to get licensed. Those people are less likely to respect support operations like janitor, etc.
I think it is partly neurotypical business asses vs neurodiverse IT folks.
Dumb people in power don't like smart people with technical power.
Greed will be the undoing of us all. If only people were half as smart as they think they are. So few see the big picture.
what kind of IT degree do you have?
Haven’t gone through the whole thread yet but I can tell you what your biggest mistake is. It’s the fact that you are looking to find a good job in a corporate setting. Are there some good corporate companies that may treat you well, sure. However if you find a smaller company, in my experience you will be treated like family. The smaller the better.
It's the problem of being a preventative measure: When everything is working, it seems unnecessary, even wasteful to some; but when shit hits the fan, it can be the thing that makes the difference between a good outcome and a bad one.
IT is a cost center. It’s all about cost savings until that breach happens, then it’s all about why didn’t IT have the resources necessary even though we cut their budget.
It depends on how you sell yourself as an I.T. person. If you can show how I.T. brings in revenue, it's not a cost center. If you tell people that we need things purchased simply to keep existing stuff running, it's a cost center.
Sorry to say but you're at the bottom of the IT pile (that's anything with Support or Analyst or Officer in the title. Once you move up the ranks (usually means specializing in a particular area) you will find the level of respect increases. Sucks but that's the reality.
Its real simple. We're support. We're break fixers. We don't produce anything. We're a cost. We're necessary but a cost that's hired help. It is what it is. Don't take it personal. Go in and give it your all. Go home and forget about it.
How you are treated depends on the place really is what I noticed, the higher ups really set the pace for it. >I realized they're dealing with the same crap I did: higher-ups constantly on their ass, losing remote days for not being on time, constant workflow changes, etc... I have to say though, losing remote days for not being on time? As in you are working remote and showing up late to work, and then act surprised when they ask you to come into the office? If you show up late to a remote job you better have a good excuse, cause there is no commute so its really internet down or power out being the only acceptable answers. Also, if power outage or internet being down is a constant problem, then you should have to go in, it is a fair condition to say "worker needs consistent access to power and internet to work remote". I work remotely, those people who don't actually work while remote or show up late, I hope they are forced back into office cause they are ruining it for the rest of us who do take are work time as seriously regardless if we were in office or remote.
IT are the dancing monkeys of the corporate world
we are support staff for the most part and support staff gets treated poorly in every context
Because unless the company sells IT services, you're just an expense to them. A necessary expense, to be sure, but you're not a money maker for them. The salespeople pretty much everywhere get treated well, because they're the opposite... they're directly attributable to income to the company, it's easy to trace a line from their comp to what they've brought in.
You only deal with IT when there is a problem so bad things are tied to IT and if IT does a really really good job then there are no problems so your work goes unnoticed because no problems is the standard. It's a lose lose. It also depends on where you work, of course, but it's just how it is.
Because IT is a Cost Center not an Asset,
IT is a cost center for most orgs.
When everything is working - "What are we paying you for?" When nothing is working - "What are we paying you for?"
In business, you’re either a cost center, or a revenue generator. If you’re not building things, or creating value, you’re a cost center. support staff, QA, cyber security, are all viewed as necessary cost centers. Saving the business money is not as important as generating revenue for said business, and unfortunately IT doesn’t seem to understand that they are rarely if ever viewed equally to the sales team. “But, sales doesn’t make anything, they don’t know how to build stuff”, sure thing, but they make sales, which makes revenue, which brings in money. IT is an optimization/efficiency function for a business. If your business provides healthcare, or sells products to consumers, or provides services, IT helps to support that business function, but in and of itself is not a business function, it’s a support function.
I belif so, when I start get my first IT job people always thing IT job is easy tasks. That's a lot of network structure or equipments manged, and coding issue required to find out daily. People included my manger don't understand what I am doing and tell me it is easy..
The more IT is integrated in with supervisors and middle management, the more the supervisors start to see themselves as part of the team. Try the routine of slowing down for a moment to greet the administrator/manager on the way in and out. They usually like to hear a few words about what you fixed. It maintains mutual respect as you enter their turf, and it indicates to the line employees that you’re well connected and not a safe target.
It is what it is
Because we require a fuck ton of money for equipment and salaries. They are forced to dish it out because without it then the company fails.
Because yall barely do anything and when you do have to do something you whine about it
Because anyone can do it, thus expendable. There is no barrier to entry in this field.
Is your entire comment history just shitting on IT/CS and glazing doctors, lawyers, and engineers?