IT department: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
One of the great paradoxes of any large organisation, and a great example of an inverse correlation. For the larger the IT department is, the worse the firm’s information technology architecture is sure to be. There is, indeed, an upper bound on the potential size of any financial services firm: the point where it is ''too big to function''.  
{{a|work|}}One of the great paradoxes of any large organisation, and a great example of an inverse correlation. For the larger the IT department is, the worse the firm’s information technology architecture is sure to be. There is, indeed, an [[Scale paradox - Risk Article|upper bound]] on the potential size of any financial services firm: the point where it is ''too big to function''.
 
It is a curious fact of corporate experience that the more salutary a firm’s internal technological support — the more it relies on [[FAQ]]s, [[chatbot]]s, and [[outsourcing|outsourced]] helpdesks staffed by [[school-leavers from Bucharest]] reading off [[playbook]]s perched on their laps — the more people are actually employed in baffling concatenations of middle management in the IT department.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Scale paradox - Risk Article]]
*[[Intranet]]
*[[Intranet]]
*[[Work-around]]
*[[Work-around]]

Revision as of 21:19, 15 October 2021

Office anthropology™


The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

One of the great paradoxes of any large organisation, and a great example of an inverse correlation. For the larger the IT department is, the worse the firm’s information technology architecture is sure to be. There is, indeed, an upper bound on the potential size of any financial services firm: the point where it is too big to function.

It is a curious fact of corporate experience that the more salutary a firm’s internal technological support — the more it relies on FAQs, chatbots, and outsourced helpdesks staffed by school-leavers from Bucharest reading off playbooks perched on their laps — the more people are actually employed in baffling concatenations of middle management in the IT department.

See also