Stavros Macrakis wrote:
Condescendingly assuming that the IT department is run by idiots whose
decisions are ruled by emotional attachments (as one correspondent
suggested), or that they are irrationally prejudiced against free/open
source, and that it is obvious and irrefutable that you know better
than them (as was implied by some correspondents), may make you feel
better, but probably won't help much.
I assume that I am that "one correspondent."
My longer post above was one-sided to drive a point. I suspect everyone
here is a logically-leaning sort, who has more than once fallen into the
trap of thinking that if you just present a logical argument, your
interlocutor will have no choice but to come over to your side of the
issue. This can work, but it's not all that common. A likelier path to
success includes an element of emotional jujutsu.
Something I neglected to touch on above is that we should also be aware
of our own emotional tie-ups. Most of those of us here *like* R, and
not entirely for rational reasons. Perhaps you enjoy the aesthetics of
the language; maybe you think the default graph types look especially
nice; maybe you think free software is the only ethical sort; maybe some
of the people here are friends of yours.
If someone tells us R is no good, those emotions can turn on us, and you
get a typical ugly advocacy battle.
On the other hand, our feelings about R and its community can give us a
reason to develop and pursue an emotionally forceful argument, which can
win the day where a purely rational one wouldn't. It takes a certain
amount of charisma or backing force for this to work; emotion again.
It also won't help much if you don't explain clearly and calmly *why*
exactly you need to use R for your work.
Certainly. Just don't rely wholly on rational reasons.
Don't forget that you are trying to change a human organization, and
that this is much harder than swapping two columns in an R matrix.
Some companies will be
more careful, wanting to vet any software that can open a TCP
connection (which most non-trivial software systems, including both
Excel and R, can).
Well, yes, I suppose I can't argue that there are probably some
companies that do actually do this. I can't prove otherwise. What is
obvious from just with a quick look-around, though, is that the vast
majority of organizations don't. If they did, it wouldn't have taken a
decade to get from ActiveX to UAC.
Even if the IT department *is* behaving irrationally, responding
irrationally yourself probably won't help your cause.
I never said you should pursue the cause irrationally. I just said you
should never forget that those you're trying to convince are never
wholly rational. (A wholly rational human being is actually a pretty
scary thing, so thankfully rare.) If you pursue your campaign thinking
your audience will respond to your questions with T's and F's, the only
way you can succeed is if they were inclined to support you regardless.
Otherwise, you are lost.
By the way, another reading suggestion I kicked myself for leaving out:
http://www.issurvivor.com/
http://weblog.infoworld.com/lewis/
Want to know how IT management thinks and how to work with them to
effect change? Read Bob's blog and InfoWorld column. Some selections
that are particularly on-point here:
http://www.weblog.keepthejointrunning.com/wordpress/?p=1594
http://www.weblog.keepthejointrunning.com/wordpress/?p=1603
http://www.weblog.keepthejointrunning.com/wordpress/?p=1623
http://www.weblog.keepthejointrunning.com/wordpress/?p=2552
http://www.weblog.keepthejointrunning.com/wordpress/?p=2691
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
