Have your say at computerweekly.com
The problem with desire for instant
gratification
I read with interest Eric Doyle's article on renting software
and viewing software as a service, (Computer Weekly, 7 March). I
think the whole evolution of the software market is throwing most
suppliers into very interesting times.
As the market matures, IT has shifted from being viewed as a
competitive advantage to being seen as an embedded part of the
business. I can't think of any large corporate whose core business
does not rely on IT in some shape or form. Customers are now
looking to suppliers to share more of the risk, but the real
question is who should own the risk?
IT is now so complex and pervasive that there are normally
multiple suppliers involved in any IT roll-out. Interoperability is
one of the core requirements. But when problems arise, the
ownership question inevitably raises its ugly head.
Added to this is the fact that customers have moved into an
instant gratification era. They want their problems to be resolved
quickly. I suspect that a lot of suppliers still focus on response
times rather than outcomes and resolution.
That's why we are a member of the Technical Alliance Support
Network (TSANet). TSANet connects support communities on a global
or local stage. It allows supplier-to-supplier support
collaboration within the IT industry. I firmly believe that this is
the only effective way of addressing customer problems. But I
welcome readers' views.
Colin Hughes, Senior manager, Symantec and chairman of
TSANet Europe
IT needs to step up to the plate for
datacentres
Cliff Saran's article detailing the perpetual conflict between
IT and facilities management departments over control of the
datacentre made interesting reading (Computer Weekly, 21 March).
What must be asked is: when the datacentre is now the heart of many
businesses, why are IT directors still failing to step up to the
plate and take full ownership of this environment?
To prevent classic buck-passing, organisations must stamp out
divided responsibility for the computing environment. IT directors
must be accountable for the datacentre as well as the hardware,
software and infrastructure, so they can start to do the job they
are paid to do.
The modern computer environment has become so specialist that it
needs looking after by people who understand exactly how computer
racks and server arrays need to be cooled, what humidity ranges are
appropriate, and what the effect of adding another piece of
equipment will have on the overall balance of the area.
If IT directors are to guarantee the integrity and availability
of the data and systems that they are entrusted with, then it
stands to reason that ownership of the IT environment must also
come under the same remit. Otherwise the overall service delivery
will be compromised, putting the whole business at severe risk.
IT directors everywhere will be failing in their duty if they
attempt to offer any service guarantees without first demanding,
and then accepting, control and responsibility for the IT
environment.
Paul Elliott, Managing director future-tech
How well does security travel in offshore
age?
The recent article "Ensuring data doesn't leave with your staff"
and related news in brief "Lost HP laptop prompts identity fraud
fears" (Computer Weekly, 28 March) highlight the ease with which
data can be taken/stolen when many services are contracted out to
third parties, necessitating data sharing across company
boundaries. The controls in place are not sufficient to handle
this, as so often economy takes priority over security.
Recent concerns expressed about the handling of business process
outsourcing data, now either housed or accessed by companies in
countries which have a history of corruption and black market
economies, is clearly the area being overlooked because it pays to
do so.
Assurances by the UK Information Commission sound hollow to
anyone who has worked in those locations. Breaches of
security/illegal activity are routine, but also routinely covered
up because it is in their own best interest to do so. Let's get
real - data security in these situations is laughable.
Randal Frankwick, Senior analyst/programmer Vertex
WebTech
Shared services need a staged approach
Ian Watmore's plans to push local authorities into mandatory
shared services (Computer Weekly, 7 March) is not the way to move
towards large-scale integration.
The vision of many councils sharing services sounds incredibly
attractive, but in order to deliver these benefits in practice, a
staged approach must be developed. The focus should be on ensuring
that the implementation of this technology takes into account any
technical, organisational and political issues that will inevitably
arise. The joint effort should be emphasised to allay any "takeover
fears", otherwise not all parties will buy in to the ideas, leading
to unfinished projects and inevitable overspending.
Deploying infrastructures that support existing applications, as
well as offer the opportunity to integrate new shared systems, is a
critical factor. This creates a level playing field for all
participants, but allows councils to remain as individuals until
they're ready to become fully involved.
Shared services will ultimately drive down costs, but rush the
implementation now and it could prove costly. We cannot afford to
create suspicion within councils and risk resistance to technical
applications or delays in getting the new systems up and
running.
Colin Reid, Chief executive Consilium Technologies
What happens to my validation if I fail to
pay?
I often read articles quoting BCS members as though their BCS
membership was some form of recognition of their professional
capabilities, technical knowledge or industry experience.
When discussed with other IT professionals, they are often
unwilling to attempt membership because of what they see as a
difficult membership process involving exams and tests to prove
that you are up to the BCS standard. And yet, if you are no longer
able to afford the yearly subscription, you are no longer eligible
to retain the letters MBCS after your name.
I can understand that membership privileges are revoked - their
provision and administration costs money, but apparently, no longer
being able to pay an annual membership fee means that your
professional equivalence is no longer valid.
Oh dear - I wish I hadn't rolled my convertible on the M6
now.
Stuart Learmonth, MBCS (until 6 June)
Answer back
Do you disagree with someone's opinion on this page? Or do you
have something to say about a Computer Weekly article? If so, we
want to hear from you. E-mail
computer.weekly@rbi.co.uk
Please include a daytime telephone number.