IT Decision Maker

Blog archive

How Your Political Issues Are Killing Your IT

Here's a true story: I was once teaching a VBScript class (this was, obviously, years ago) when a student asked if there was a way to write a script that would enforce the membership of computers' local Administrators group. I smiled, knowing that I was about to make this person very happy. "You don't have to write a script," I said. "You can just use the Restricted Groups settings in a Group Policy object." The person shook their head. "We can't. Our Active Directory administrator doesn't like Group Policy, so we can't use it."

I was floored. I literally did not know what to say. I'm pretty sure I stood there with my mouth hanging open for a full minute, shook my head vigorously, and went on teaching as if nothing had happened. What else could I have done?

In the years since, I've run across a metric butt-tonne of similar situations, where folks couldn't do the right thing due to some political reason -- often a misinformed political reason. The most recent: "We can't use PowerShell remoting to remotely administer computers because our security policy won't let us open the necessary port." At the same time, these folks are allowed to use Remote Desktop, which imposes a massively greater performance burden on their servers. They are allowed to use technologies like Windows Management Instrumentation, which uses a much wider range of TCP ports and is somewhat less controllable than PowerShell Remoting. In other words, Remoting is verboten simply because it's new, and the organization's security officer or policymakers won't take the time to understand it.

Folks, this is ridiculous. If you're an IT decision maker in your environment, your main job should be to fight this kind of -- well, let's just call it BS, because that's what it is. This attitude is like saying, "we bought this new car, but we can't use it because we don't really like the idea of gasoline."

Products are built the way they are for a reason. Over time, those reasons will change and evolve, and the products will change and evolve to suit. You can't "just decide" to not use a product the way it was intended because you don't find that way aesthetically pleasing, or because you "don't like it," or because you haven't taken the time to understand it. I can accept, "we're not using it yet, because it's under review." In fact, that statement shows a level of maturity I applaud. You know a feature exists, you're not familiar with it yet, but you're taking the time to become familiar.

From now on, when people ask me how to do something, I'm going to tell them the right way (or ways, if there are choices). But I find myself increasingly unwilling to engage in elaborate hacks and manual workarounds just to accommodate ill-advised, uninformed policies. Use the products the way they're meant to be used, or stop using them and buy something that works the way you want.

Now, that's distinct from instances where there's a compelling, business-related reason. For example, if you told me, "we can't use Group Policy because we're in a highly distributed environment, and our tests show that replicating GPOs puts too great a strain on our WAN bandwidth," then fine. That's a legitimate reason and we can start looking for a workaround. That's a bad example, of course, because GPOs don't do any such thing...but you get my point. A well-informed, business reason to not use a product in a specific way is just fine.

What about you? What goofy policies do you have to deal with that just don't make any technical sense -- or even any common sense? Let me know in the comment section below.

Posted by Don Jones on 05/02/2011 at 1:14 PM


comments powered by Disqus

Reader Comments:

Thu, Jun 16, 2011 Pamela The Library

Our library branches provide PCs for public Internet access. The deputy director in charge of our department has already nixed the idea of alternate browsers, "We are a Microsoft shop, we use IE" Fair enough. Can we please keep current with IE? IE 8 was available on XP when we finally upgraded all those security risks to IE 7. I got tired of asking when we could upgrade them to IE 8. And it doesn't seem as if any one around here will even consider when to start testing Windows 7. Surely I can't be the only one who recognizes that the public accessing the Internet on our PCs and our network is our one huge gaping hole that needs constant attention.

Mon, May 23, 2011 Navaho GY, South America

What should be done when the Political BS is inherent in IT unprofessionalism. Cases where IT staff takes non-tech staff for a royal run-around seemingly to show that IT is Boss or to support some nefarious scheme? So they endup creating the political bottlenecks for users.

Fri, May 13, 2011 Frustrated IT Guy St. Louis MO

In our environment, we keep unused switch ports disabled for security reasons. Fair enough! But we have to put in a "change request" to have these switch ports "enabled" everytime we deploy a new server so it can talk on the network. The process of creating these change requests takes about 10 minutes and requires a two-day approval process. The actual work performed by the network support engineer, takes about 10 seconds.

Fri, May 13, 2011 John Martner Madison, Wisconsin, USA

Some years ago I was teaching a private VB6 class for programmers from a company and I was talking about registering/unregistering dlls, and how VB6 was not perfect in terms of cleaning up the registry after itself. After I demonstrated how to work with regsvr32 and regedit, one of the students told me that they would not be able to do any of what I had shown because their company did not allow the programmers administrative rights on their desktops!

Add Your Comment Now:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above

Redmond Tech Watch

Sign up for our newsletter.

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.