80 Percent of IT Decision Makers Say Outdated Tech is Holding Them Back (betanews.com) 143
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from maximizing value. From a report: Among the findings are that 80 percent of those surveyed report that outdated technology holds their organization back from taking advantage of new data-driven opportunities. Also that trust and quality issues slow progress, with only 29 percent of respondents having complete trust in the quality of their organization's data. Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) say they face unprecedented volumes of data but struggle to generate useful insights from it, estimating that they use only about half (51 percent) of the data they collect or generate. What's more, respondents estimate that less than half (48 percent) of all business decisions are based on data.
Gut-Based Decisions? (Score:1)
What's more, respondents estimate that less than half (48 percent) of all business decisions are based on data.
So what you are saying, is that over half of all business decisions are based on "gut feelings"?
Re:Gut-Based Decisions? (Score:5, Funny)
It's only estimated to be about half, based on their gut feelings. The data tells a different story about how much the data is getting used. I'm trying to make sense of the data but the math is actually kind of hard. But my gut tells me that this data tells me it's about half the decisions.
I'll revise my estimate as more guts come in.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to make sense of the data but the math is actually kind of hard.
BARBIE? Is that you? I'm a fan of your album. [youtu.be]
No, based on reality (Score:2)
Gut-Based Decisions
Nope, entirely empirically derived. Their javascript computer vision based AI app runs way too slow. Hardware is totally lagging behind software and holding things back.
Open the I.T. closet door... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only in the U.S.A. ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that doesn't make it healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the U.S.A. ...
No. I'm pretty certain he weighs that much in whichever country he is in
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of outdated tech sits inside I.T. storage closets to gather dust. Most companies don't have a plan to recycle outdated tech.
And how exactly is outdated tech sitting powered off in a storage closet degrading current business and decision making?
If the answer here was as simple as "recycle", we wouldn't be having this discussion. You're sure as hell not going to fund a proper hardware refresh by recycling old crap for pennies.
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly is outdated tech sitting powered off in a storage closet degrading current business and decision making?
When I did a PC refresh at a local hospital, I cleaned out an I.T. closet in between tickets for six weeks. I reclaimed 600 square feet of usable space, found the floor that no one had seen in eight years, found a $10K plasma TV that was "lost" for seven years, and made the FTE techs look bad because a contractor cleaned up their mess in between tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
A truly awesome tech would have grabbed a few FTE techs to lend a hand, passed the glory to them (with an aside to themselves as an also ran).
That would've got you great karma with the FTEs, a knowing nod from management, and a great chance to network.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Then he'll remind you to watch his inept videos, which you can do privately and securely here. [ua-video.com]
The English version of those kind of websites have pornographic ads. According to YouTube, they can't do anything about websites re-hosting their content.
Re:The tech isn't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I did some contract IT for a construction company once. They had FOUR different "VPN Solutions". Two hardware ones on differing routers, two software ones that they'd decided to kludge together from "free to home user" alternatives like Hamachi.
The initial thing they were bitching about was that Hamachi had dropped the "free" option down to 5 computers max and several employees got frozen out. They wanted it "fixed", didn't want to hear that commercial use totally violated the "free account" terms of service and that Hamachi wasn't likely to change it without them paying money, and had lost all the documentation for either of their hardware solutions.
The "server" running an old NT4 domain? Oh yeah. Ancient as hell, looking to die any day, but the CEO didn't want to buy anything new or pay anyone to migrate it because "I spent good money on that and it was just fine when I got it and it still works."
I wasn't the first person to wind up just doing the duct tape repairs and I probably won't be the last. When I left, I wasn't even told they were firing me for a month (in which time they brought in a guy who was "tech savvy" to a site manager position, then threw a bunch of IT work at him and he quit, then they hired a second guy and did the same but he stayed, I guess). Three of their employees emailed me a couple month later asking me to come in to fix things for them because (a) "new tech guy" was never in the office and (b) they'd never been told I didn't do contract work for the company any more. I just emailed them back, told them I didn't do contract IT for the company more and that all my documentation had been returned to the CEO, sorry.
This is basically the same way virtually every "small business" winds up running, though. The people who make the pocketbook decisions (a) are technologically illiterate, (b) think that everything now is "free" or "cheap and easy with no maintenance" thanks to marketing drones and FOSS evangelists who go way the fuck too far overpromising, and (c) don't want to hear the words "preventative maintenance" or even "maintenance", ever.
Re:The tech isn't the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Both of the "routers" for the building were in the ceiling. I wasn't allowed to pop my head up above the tiles to work out more than I could find out about them by going into their web control panels. Unfortunately whoever set THOSE up had actually been diligent and changed the factory default passwords...
The CEO didn't want to spend the money and get billed the hours it would have taken for me to factory-reset things, set them back up properly and document it all so that whoever came next would have the documents on how things were done. His attitude over and over was "just fix what needs fixing, I don't care as long as they can work."
From what you're describing it sounds like there are good reasons for your VPN overlaps, such as transitioning out a legacy / discontinued system. The issue I was describing was what you get when you've got the standard issue small business though:
- kludges deployed on the cheap and/or downright "free by violating license terms" by less than scrupulous people
- completely undocumented setups that haven't been maintained at all and got hooked into each other, sometimes even not by the IT person (there was a "wireless network" in one half of the building that was literally running off of a USB antenna from one user's desktop. I found out about it when they went on vacation and someone complained that "the wireless is down" because they'd shut off their desktop before leaving).
- Stuff that had been set up by the CEO's "oh but he's a really tech savvy kid, he could probably teach you a few things" nephew. I met the kid once. Nice enough but no, he wasn't "tech savvy" - he was the sort of dope who would plug in an off the shelf wireless AP and leave the SSID and password on factory default, then tell his uncle it was working perfectly. And don't you DARE try to tell the CEO his precious nephew hadn't set something up correctly or securely...
Oh and just to add insult to injury: their password scheme was nonsensical. The CEO insisted that everyone's password be their two initials, a dash, and then the company name. So that he "could check into any account if he needed to." He also had a bad habit of firing people without warning and not-on-good-terms, while not remembering to let his IT person know when someone was fired and to disable their account. Little good though that would probably do since everyone instantly understood the password "system"...
Re: (Score:1)
Cute! [s.pacn.ws]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
80 percent of IT Decision Implementers... (Score:1)
On the other hand, a similar percentage of IT Decision Implementers recognize the "new data-driven opportunities" as being buzzword cow-pies that entice the MBAs with no technical skills.
Re: (Score:2)
"My ignorance amuses me.."
Based on how many companies seem to enjoy ignorantly building an IT hardware refresh cycle based on hardware failure, I'd say it's more like a "pleasurable torment"...
Re: (Score:2)
Good, because your ignorance is shining brightly.
Tech costs money. Companies don't have enough money, unless they're very successful. Very successful companies have money because they don't spend it all on tech.
And the other way around (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So much this, they WANT the data. But don't want to spend the money on ensuring proper processes for capturing said data.
But the data isn't any good! Duh, GIGO still rules.
Re:And the other way around (Score:5, Interesting)
This is pretty much it. In an organization with 1,200 Unix or Unix peripherals, at my last check 91% of the gear is End of Life in one manner or another (OS and/or Hardware). The business won't prioritize replacements due to spending the time to work on testing new gear vs spending time creating new software. Information security won't step in and require patching for vulnerabilities or upgrading in general and their gear is just as outdated. They have no idea what's in the environment so have no idea if servers are compliant or not. About the only time we can address technical debt is when a product is retired. Even product patches address the patch and not upgrading the environment as that's not prioritized.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
John, which organization is this? :P
Re: (Score:2)
It takes time to learn, such as getting certified, on new products and services. While somebody is studying or getting certified on the latest addition to the tech, and supporting the users calling into the call center with learning how to operate the new thingamabob, somebody else has to fill that tech's shoes and support wh
Re:Sky is blue, Water is black (Score:5, Informative)
I've been in IT for 40 years, and yes, you're right. Its always been this way, it always will be. But there is a business decision reasoning for a lot of it. Let me break it down for you into three basic categories.
1) Bleeding edge. Hopping on every new tech that rolls around hoping to catch the top of the first wave. Most of which will die and go away and barely be remembered. The business case for this is agility. The down side is very rarely works out as intended or even tangentially. (Think BlockChain)
2) Mainstream. Slightly behind Bleeding edge by a couple years. Most of the rough edges have been worn off, and there is enough data to show the tech is actually useful. The business case for this approach is waiting for others to show it will pan out decreases risk. The downside is you might be behind competitors who are in Group 1. (Think: Cloud)
3) Trailing Edge. Finally on the bandwagon, long after it is established. The business case for this is long term stability and minimal risk. The downside is obvious as competitors have long since adopted tech and has made effective use of it, and the risk of obsolescence as you adopt tech. (Wireless G)
Unless you're in Group 1, everything you look at will seem like "outdated tech" to some degree.
Current tech is only related to tech from 20-30 years ago if you view tech as waves of use. If you don't understand what you're looking at, its because you're focusing on what the tech is doing, not its life-cycle. Not saying that is bad, it is just a different perspective (which may work fine). The point being, if you're in the industry long enough, you see technological life-cycles everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Item is suffering from incompatibilities, and Google search results are either no longer applicable or have disappeared entirely.
2. Item is more than 1 year old, and isn't trendy.
3. Item costs more to operate than to replace and retrain staff. So somewhere between 4 years old, and 15 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
I've worked with (and specialized in) "ancient shit", and it's almost invariably just an extreme form of Michael's third case. What was once just a reliable piece of equipment has been part of the enterprise for so long that management has forgotten what it actually does.
To use your example, it's not just a plotter they see. It's the magical portal that turns designs into tangible drawings. Sure, it could be replaced by a new piece of equipment, but that's a big scary unknown. They'd have to replace the dri
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about physical technology is a red herring in my opinion. From an IT perspective incompatibility is really a minor issue and while you may need to make the case that new hardware needs to be purchased, it's something that can eventually be done or the company decided they just don't need it. The larger issue is the lack of data literacy with regard to what data is collected, why it is collected, and what segments of that data show. The former is a creeping problem typically with data being collected
Re: (Score:2)
Is category 1 really necessary for a compelling business model? Is Google Android having the education market and Apple having the iPod/iPad/iPhone market really that big a threat to Microsoft's profitability as a Category 3 service provi
Re: (Score:2)
What's holding them back is dumb Directors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want telemetry and forced updating Windows 10 and we don't want Portless Macs either. Windows 7 will be staying here after January 14 2020 on my computers.
I can understand Win10 bullshit and disagree with Apples move to portless designs, but how exactly is a portless Mac preventing you from adopting it? You've justified spending $3K+ on Apple hardware and OSX, but you can't justify another $200 for any I/O adapters that may be needed?
Someone Else's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
80 percent of IT decision makers say they're ineffective because of someone else's choice, not theirs.
We had the technology to handle terabyte size databases twenty years ago. Data warehouses aren't new. Columnstores and NoSQL don't make data analysis any easier. So, I don't see "outdated tech" being a very good excuse for stupidity like "less than half (48 percent) of all business decisions are based on data". This looks like nothing other than a cheap ad for the company mentioned in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Talk to them about outcomes. Ask they how they personally contributed to those outcomes. Hand them a whiteboard pen and invite them to draw a picture.
Never hire an architect that can't draw a picture.
I see the opposite problem (Score:5, Insightful)
In my previous job, we had no problem with outdated technology holding us back. In fact, we leased server hardware and had it replaced at the recommended interval, we had a petabyte disk array, virtualization, and even a mobile telepresence device (not heavily used). We had plenty of tech. What the bosses wouldn't do is hire more people. They were convinced that the solution to any problem was throwing more gigahertz and terabytes at it. But the hard problems we needed to address weren't technological in nature, they were human problems. Last I heard, the department was crumbling and their software solution retired in shambles. But people are expensive, and you have to keep paying them to keep them.
In the place I work now, they've been collecting client usage data for 10 years, but they've never organized or analyzed it. That's what I'm doing there, but again, the barrier to this wasn't technological in nature, it was just that it was never anyone's job to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Out-dated doesn't necessarily mean 'legacy', 'out of support' or 'old'.
A brand new system on shiny new hardware can use out-dated technologies, and that can prevent it supporting the business agility and data led decisioning that senior managers are demanding.
Whether they know what they're asking for, whether they're willing to pay for it and the chances of them actually using it properly are a whole raft of other conversations.
Re: I see the opposite problem (Score:2)
Bleeding edge or constantly updated platforms such as Windows 10 Current Branch are not likely to offer a stable base to manipulate data views in an agile manner. Its more productive to troubleshoot and experiment with applications instead of the underlying OS. In an
Sounds like an advert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the study was paid for by Snaplogic who conveniently sells solutions to this problem. I've not dealt with Snaplogic at all so I can't really weigh an opinion; but I usually assume that the bigger the marketing department the bigger pile of shit they're compensating for. Good products sell themselves; just ask Linus.
It's also been my experience that if your quick to jump into the "new shiny" stuff then that same new shiny stuff from last year is now "outdated". There's value is slowly adapting new techn
AI (Score:2)
No Budget = Outdated Tech (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
no budget is called poor planning or poor management unless your company is going broke.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the emphasis is as much on not being able to *find* a vendor/partner/consultant to provide good advice and *consultation* on what technology they should be using. We had an expensive, highly regarded consultant update our systems to accommodate two offices which needed simultaneous read-write access to ~3TB of data with change rates of about 2GB/hour, with a 100Mb site-to-site VPN with 10ms latency.
His initial solution was to use FreeNAS and rsync to achieve this, but ended up "needing" to use WInd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're the decision makers (Score:4, Informative)
Is the new tech any better? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right, but I think you can get at some of the root causes here being IT vendors abandoning products before their useful life has ended as a means of ginning up new sales, new support contracts and new licensing, inevitably for higher prices and less value. The churn wheel seems to turn faster than ever.
And then you have vendors like VMware who have in some ways exhausted the market for their primary product. Nearly everyone who can remotely justify virtualization (which right now is down
Re: (Score:2)
Local maximums = global minimums (Score:3)
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from maximizing value.
Maximizing IT value or maximizing company value? Those are not necessarily the same thing. Just because you invest heavily in IT does not necessarily mean that those investments will equate to an improvement on the bottom line of the company. It might but it's not a given. There is an old maxim that local maximums often make for global minimums. Having the most efficient IT in the world doesn't matter if the rest of the company operations suffer as a result.
We have to remember that IT is a cost. It is a (very important) tool. It is a means to an end and not an end itself. You invest in IT when it will permit the company to be more profitable. If the cost of upgrading the IT to maximum efficiency exceeds the profits enabled by that upgrade then you don't do it unless there is a strategic imperative forcing you to. And to be fair it's not always clear what the impact of an IT upgrade will be. I've seen them be hugely beneficial but I've also seen them bankrupt companies and of course lots of cases of it having little to no change.
If you want to upgrade the IT in a company the challenge is to make a case for how it will provide an ROI which is ultimately what most business owners actually care about.
Innovation requires risk (Score:2)
The real problem is poor planning (Score:3)
So you have outdated 'tech/software' 'holding you back'?
Can you show me the plan you made when you installed said tech and software for it's maintenance / convalescence? Including expected budget for upgrades and replacements in a reasonable and timely fashion?
Did you ensure you would be able to migrate all important data from that proprietary vendor format to whatever the new best thing would be to avoid vendor lock in?
Do you have everything sufficiently documented so that someone else can take over when your expert retires? Did you spend the money and time to do these things right?
NO? That sounds like a MANAGEMENT problem. Would you have done that with little planning with any other kind of company resource? Company vehicles? Buildings? .... hmm... no?
If Only! (Score:1)
If only there were a way for "IT decision makers" to somehow change this situation!
So sad, that dated IT technology is holding them back. You know, perhaps some kind of decision could be made, by, I dunno, some sort of IT management type.
Yes, I know that there is a bit more to it than just an aspiration for better technology. Budgets, upper management, I know the whole drill. It's still a bit too rich for me, that IT decision makers are decrying what is, in effect, a failure to decide or act to change th
Not *outdated tech* (Score:5, Informative)
Blah blah blah old tech bad blah blah blah new tech good blah blah blah. Oh look, a company that sells a SAAS service says that old tech is bad and new tech is good!
This is such a pathetic self-serving refrain and I am SO sick of hearing it.
"Old" tech does *not* hold you back. Generally speaking, it never has, and it never will.
What *will* hold you back? Poor management will hold you back. Badly implemented technology that leaves you with a big pile of technical debt will hold you back. Hiring people based on buzzword bingo will hold you back.
I know companies who, for example, went all in on Hadoop because it was "new" and "cool" and "let you slice and dice massive amounts of data data with ease". (Their entire dataset was less than 1TB) Less than a year later, and the entire effort has been discarded because the effort required just to maintain the thing was overwhelming compared to the value they were actually getting out of it. They were able to accomplish what they wanted with much less effort using a single simple instance of SQL Server.
The current culture of treating with disdain anything older than 6 months has to be one of the most profoundly idiotic notions to have ever come out of the computer industry. We have become fans of reinventing the wheel over and over, without so much as once thinking about whether there is even a benefit to the effort.
It's one thing to introduce a new technology for realistic, practical reasons, such as you simply don't have the manpower to implement said thing with what you already have. But do NOT just spew junk self-serving surveys that blanket says "you gotta throw out what you got and get this new shiny" because that's a lie and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the innovation timecycle is now measured in months doesn't necessarily mean that companies necessarily NEED to keep up with it.
I can't think of a dumber idea operationally or economically than to switch to something new on a corporate scale simply because of the novelty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The current culture of treating with disdain anything older than 6 months.... We have become fans of reinventing the wheel over and over, without so much as once thinking about whether there is even a benefit to the effort.
But if I'm going to have to learn anything, I might as well learn something new. Besides, we learn from our mistakes so the new shiny won't have any of the old crud. Any if I'm one of the first on the bandwagon, it looks great for me -- look how smart I am! I can program in Z, which is guaranteed to be 23 time BETTER than C!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some companies went so far as to roll their own Hadoop deployment on commodity hardware and storage
We tried doing it from scratch as a learning exercise while building up expertise. Our conclusion?
Don't.
It is really too bad (Score:3)
That the IT decision makers are generally:
a) beancounters who create this technological debt out of ignorance and generally against the recommendations of their subject matter experts.
or
b) IT people who are knowledgeable enough to avoid this problem, but not powerful enough in the organization to follow through because of the beancounters above them.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit buzzwords and advertising. (Score:2)
A study by analysts Vanson Bourne for self service automation specialist SnapLogic looks at the data priorities and investment plans of IT decision makers, along with what's holding them back from giving money to SnapLogic.
"Data driven" is a buzzword. It's synonymous with "not bullshit". People have been making "data driven" decisions forever.
Among the findings are that 80 percent of those surveyed report that outdated technology holds their organization back from taking advantage of new data-driven opportunities.
ie, buy SnapLogic. SHOCKING!
Also that trust and quality issues slow progress, with only 29 percent of respondents having complete trust in the quality of their organization's data.
Those 29% are idiots then. Complete trust? WTF are they smoking? But this is just a bullshit poll where some people picked a number 1-5.
Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) say they face unprecedented volumes of data but struggle to generate useful insights from it,
ie, the data-driven crazy is mostly bullshit.
Woooo! We have a ton of data! ....now what fucking good is it?
estimating that they use only about half (51 percent) of the data they collect or generate.
That's... actually just fine. No real shocker that the people harvesting data errored on the side of being overzealo
Maximizing Value? (Score:2)
More like winning Buzzword Bingo.
Like putting everything "In The Cloud!"
Why?
Just because it was in Forbes or the Wall Street Journal?
Re: (Score:2)
hype tech is holding us back (Score:2)
Can I have some of whatever they are smoking?
What is holding us back is hyped technology. Not reliable, proven-to-work "outdated" tech.
I recently returned to some web development after many years of absence. Don't want to tell the whole story here, that's maybe for a longer article somewhere, but OMG is the whole environment splintered and incredibly fragile. Half the modules or libraries you need are not maintained any longer because the author has moved on to the newest hype. Almost everything is replaced
You can have my mission critical server when (Score:1)
You can replace my legacy mission critical servers when you pry them from my cold dead robotic hands covered with synthetic flesh.
We use LINUX. It's not "obsolete", all we do is crunch massive DNA sequences. We don't "need" graphics to do that.
The graphics are something we do on another machine.
Now, authorize those 4000 TB drives we need and stop whining.
Obligatory Dilbert Post for IT Decision Makers (Score:2)
so True (Score:2)
Needs more bleeding edge. (Score:1)
No, it isn't. (Score:2)
FEDEX (Score:1)
The other 20%... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
wow 48% huh? I never would have thought it was that high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)