[Sigia-l] Tool standardization (was about visio or not to visio)

[Adrian Howard]

On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 09:33  am, Listera wrote:

> "Adrian Howard" wrote:
[snip]
>> Most support skills are platform specific so the IT staff have to be 
>> retrained
>> or new staff hired. Third party suppliers can get nasty if they see 
>> the IT
>> department moving away from them. It can potentially cost the IT 
>> department a
>> lot of time, money and worry so they try and avoid it.
>
> True. But so what? Unless you try, nothing will happen.

Of course you should try if you think the benefits will pay off. Never 
said you shouldn't (remember where I mentioned keeping a mixed Mac/PC 
network because it was more efficient?)

An IT department's purpose is to get the best solution set possible for 
all of its users. You have to weigh benefits and costs. Costs that 
might be better spent elsewhere. What's better: getting a lab of five 
macs for the IAs and designers, or rolling out broadband to your remote 
workers? Who knows - depends on the circumstances. What's great for one 
group of users can mean problems for another.

If you really want to make something happen you have to address the 
costs and be able to put forward a case for the benefits. That is the 
answer to "so what?".

> If you've been in the industry long enough, you'll have a different 
> POV.
> Nothing is written in concrete. Linux came from nowhere and ate a big 
> chunk
> of Microsoft's expensive lunch and dinner. Things do change. It 
> doesn't seem
> so if you are behind the curve and suddenly it dawns on you that it 
> has.

Hmmm... after seventeen years in the IT industry I guess I still have 
stuff to learn - thank goodness for that! (For the record I'm a pro-Mac 
and love Linux. You're preaching to the converted ;-)

[snip]
>> The same problems would occur if your introduced a few Wintel boxes 
>> into a Mac
>> only organisation.
>
> Nonsense.
[snip]

No it isn't.

I have brought PCs into Mac only environments for exactly the reasons 
you outlined. There are costs. People have to be trained to support 
them. You have to purchase separate software for things like security, 
virus protection, disk repair, etc. These are not bulk licences so they 
cost more. Now you have another set of software you have to track and 
update. If the box is going to be useful outside the one task it was 
purchased for you also need to purchase the local Office equivalent and 
any other tools your normal user population needs. You have to get a 
separate software and hardware supplier - possibly damaging  a long 
term relationship in the process. Suddenly that under-the-table 
sole-customer discount disappears from your local Apple dealer. You 
have to setup separate SMB shares for the PC, or purchase extra 
software so it can talk to the rest of your AppleTalk network. You also 
have to deal with the anti-PC bias of the rest of the organisation, no 
matter how vital the software. I could go on...

In other words, exactly the same issues you get introducing Macs into a 
PC only environment in reverse. Notice how few of them are actually to 
do with the technical merits of either platform.

>> NOTE: I am *not* saying that this is a good thing. All I am saying is
>> that it is a situation that often has to be dealt with.
>
> Yes, but why be so fatalistic? The current status quo has *no* inherent
> advantage other than the fact that its is currently so. Are you saying 
> that
> this will never change? If not, how will it if you or somebody else 
> doesn't
> take the first step(s)?

All I'm saying is that these issues cannot be ignored and need to be 
dealt with.

Mac's are great and I love them dearly. They are cheaper to support 
than Wintel boxes in my experience. However that cost is nowhere even 
close to zero.

The status quo may have no inherent advantage other than the fact that 
it's currently so - but that is one *hell* of a big advantage. The 
disruption cost of moving from a mono-culture to a more heterogeneous 
environment can be considerable.

Its also not the only advantage the status-quo has. Mono-culture 
environments are easier to support than heterogeneous environments. 
They're easier to train users up in. Etc. Of course there are also 
disadvantages, but ignoring the benefits is disingenuous and will not 
convince the sceptics.

You cannot take the first steps without being able to put forward a 
good case that the benefits outweigh the costs. This is realism not 
fatalism. Nobody will listen to me if I paint a wonderful picture of a 
brave new world while ignoring all problems and dangers. Instead I have 
to point out the least dangerous route to the brave new world, the 
costs of staying in the same place, the hidden benefits of a more open 
environment, etc.

>> We now return to your normal IA topics (please ;-)
>
> Which brings me back on topic :-) I always give this example but I'll 
> do it
> again. Librarians have historically viewed the First Amendment and the
> general principle of info access as one of their core 
> responsibilities. For
> obvious reasons, it makes sense.

Indeed.

> Does it also make sense for people who give shape to information
> professionally to consider access issues as one of their core
> responsibilities? Are IAs mere implementors of products/technologies 
> or do
> they need to concern themselves with issues such as proprietary apps 
> like
> Visio, format lock-ins like the Office, content walls like AOL, IP/DRM
> restrictions like MS Palladium, P2P architectures like Kazaa, etc? Do 
> we
> aspire to be the little automatons with fancy titles who are handed 
> down
> their antiseptically approved PCs and apps by the faceless IT 
> manipulators?
> Is there any room beyond boxes and arrows for a glimpse of the big 
> picture?
> Can IAs ever get to a position of changing (large) orgs by simply 
> towing the
> legacy IT line? Can anything change unless you take a small risk with 
> one
> argument at a time?

I freelance. My home boxes are couple of Macs, a Linux box and a 
Windows box. The latter I barely touch now that I have OmniGraffle 
instead of Visio. If you see me on-site I'll normally have a Powerbook 
in my hands. I use the most effective practices and tools I can find, 
and advocate them all of the time.

That said, I also realise that the "faceless IT manipulators" aren't 
faceless. They're mostly good people trying to do a hard job with 
minimal resources and almost no respect. I've been in their shoes and 
they're tiny and uncomfortable.

There is almost nothing as annoying as somebody walking up to you and 
saying your missing the big picture when you're far more aware of the 
big picture than they are, the problems of moving to a better 
environment, and the many, many constraints preventing you getting 
there as fast as you would like.

Instead of taking the high ground I find it more productive to sit 
down, find out where the problems are and try and come up with a 
compromise solution that will make everybody as happy as possible. 
Sometimes I will just have to accept that the costs elsewhere in an 
organisation outweigh the benefits in my corner. Pragmatism and 
compromise are not always bad things. It's more important to get the 
job done than it is to waste time arguing over tools and methodologies.

This has wandered *way* off topic and I'm beginning to rant :-)  If 
anybody wants to continue this feel free to email me off-list - I'm 
sure everybody else has had more than enough.

Adrian