Because some companies treat their employees like partners and others treat their employees like slaves. Different policies are necessary for those two extremes and much in between. For the companies that demand every second of an employee's time while on duty, draconian lockdowns are necessary. For others, the mantra might be "let people do what they want within reason and IT will just have to figure out how to make it work safely." And let's face it; which is easier; total lockdown or integrating a wide variety of devices, allowing wide-ranging network access, and protecting critical data with things like IPSEC and encryption? It's certainly possible to allow significant freedom in the enterprise, but it involves a cost in IT overhead, knowledge, and watchguarding to make sure the crown jewels are protected.
Lockdown environments (and I've worked in a few) expect employees to work while they're in their seats. Breaks are taken away from the desk/floor, and no non-business computer use is allowed. Neither are radios. They need to eke out every bit of performance from their employees in order to remain profitable. (Not that I agree they can actually manage to do that, but that's another story. <G>) Personally, I think that companies that allow more freedom and hire good people are more productive overall than the lockdowns who hire low-wage drones. But the former requires more cash flow, and in today's economy, they are the ones more likely to take a hard hit if something goes tango uniform. *********************** Charlie Kaiser [email protected] Kingman, AZ *********************** > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 7:07 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow > users to install whatever > > I think this really depends on the company you're working > for. Go work for Microsoft, and you can pretty much do > whatever you want to your laptop (provided it's legal). My > company is the same. But I can understand the other arguments > being made here (which I largely agree with). > > > > In a large enterprise, IT is a productivity tool - a cog in a > wheel. But I disagree with some of the more extreme measures > being mentioned here (like disallowing people from changing > their IM status). People can take the phone off the hook if > they need some uninterrupted quiet time to get some work done > - why shouldn't they be able to be avoid being bothered on IM? > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, 20 November 2009 9:37 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow > users to install whatever > > > > When you've outsourced IT, there's no one left to torture or object. > > But, as with all other ill-fated trends, we'll see the > pendulum swing back the other way as productivity plummets. > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > ________________________________ > > From: "Alex Eckelberry" <[email protected]> > > Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:27:46 -0500 > > To: NT System Admin Issues<[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow > users to install whatever > > > > The interesting and amazing thing is that this really is > where some major companies are going - giving their users > stipends to buy whatever equipment they want, etc. > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:13 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow > users to install whatever > > > > Discuss: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487035672045744990 > 32945309844.html > > > > I believe this is more an indictment of the low quality of > journalism nowadays. It's little more than a rant on his > employer's IT policies. In no instance does he discuss the > measured effect of IT policies might have within an > organization. He makes vague allusions to the productivity > gains users could acheive if allowed to use any software they > felt necessary to do their job. Near the end of the article > he does finally discuss some of the valid reasons for > constraining users ability to install shiny new software in > order to be more "productive." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
