[Sigia-l] AIfIA Goals 2004 Survey Results

[david_fiorito at vanguard.com]

>>> Bureaucracies love standards.
>> ... and that automatically makes them evil?

>To the extent that IT bureaucrats concoct standards to propagate their
>inefficiency and ineptitude, yes.

...and its not possible to create standards that increase efficiency?  Is 
it not possible to create a standard that reflects the kind of quality of 
critical thinking that you advocate?

>The only positive in that is that innovative
>professionals are *not* drawn to rigidly bureaucraticized workplaces and
>they continue to outsmart and out innovate the IT bureaucrats by a long
>margin. 

Do not assume that innovative professionals only work in small flexible 
companies.  I have met many wildly creative individuals who work for 
companies that have an incredibly rigid bureaucracy.  Your generalization 
does them a real disservice.

>> That's reality.  I would love to be working on a Mac, using Omni 
Graffle, and
>> dressing in casual clothing but that will not happen here so I need to 
be able
>> to conform to the system.

>As long as you understand these corporate 'standards' are tools of 
coercion
>without any intrinsic merit whatsoever...Mac/OmniGraffle will easily meet
>the needs of the vast majority of IAs out there and even most of the Wall
>Street offices here haven't had a problem with casual clothes for a 
number
>of years now. It's strictly your *choice* to stay in your rigidly 
coercive
>environment. Just don't use that to justify meaningless 
bureaucraticization
>for the rest of us.

Coercion?  In a large company a lack of standards would lead to 
breakdowns, cost overruns, and in efficiency.  Recognition of that does 
not result in coercion.  Large corporations have cultures, rules, and 
standards so the work can get done as employees come and go.  There is 
nothing wrong with that.  When you get a contract you need to be able to 
work within the environment of the corporation that holds your contract. 
For your work to have value it needs to be in a form that the corporation 
can consume.
 
>> Licensing is not the issue.  Defining a profession is not licensing.

>Are you kiddin'? Licenses take great pains to define a profession and who
>can practice it, how and where. Go back and reread the thread on IAs 
banned
>in Ohio.

Read it.  Again, I am not talking about or advocating licensing - I am 
advocating clarity. 

 
>>> There's no substitute for critical thinking, whether or not you choose 
to
>>> acknowledge it.
 
>> Agreed, and critical thinking can create a solid set of standards for
>> those who need to be guided in their work.

>So there's a class of IAs who can't think for themselves and "need to be
>guided" by the dictate of others? 

Who said anything about an inability to think for one's self.  Guidance 
does not assume ineptitude.  Lawyers use the law but not all lawyers are 
involved in the creation of legislation and statute.  Does the guidance 
the law provides turn lawyers into unthinking sheep?  Hardly.

In a large enterprise where teams of IAs work together to shape the 
structure of sites there is a need to harmonize the way they work and the 
documents they deliver to fit into the machine of the enterprise.  By 
taking some remedial steps to clarify what and IA is and what an IA does 
will make us stronger not weaker.

>This, indeed, is the genesis of IT bureaucracy.

...or the creation of a highly effective team capable of greatness.  The 
direction it takes is up to us.

Cheers,

Dave