Free Article By Paul Glen of C2
Consulting
Every month we add to this collection of articles from the free monthly
newsletter IT Professionalism.
You are also free to print these articles in your newsletter or magazine if
you follow our Reprint Policy.
To subscribe to it, click here.
Wildfires and Rogue Users
(Originally published in Computerworld USA and CIO
Australia)
As I write this, the Southern California skies
over my home are brown with the smoke of more than a dozen wildfires. Luckily,
none of my family and friends has been affected so far, but as many as half a
million people have already been evacuated.
I must confess that I find myself filled with a familiar sense of outrage
listening to the fire chiefs on the local news, because it seems that they are
dealing with the same problems we in IT often face — intransigent users. Only in
their case, it's more than a wasteful annoyance — it's a life-threatening
emergency.
It seems that a large percentage of firefighters are not fighting the fires.
Instead, they are spending their time rescuing people who refused to evacuate
their homes. Firefighters are risking their lives to save those who have ignored
repeated requests and demands that they leave. It seems reasonable that they
would have to rescue some people — the elderly, infirm or incapacitated — but
the stubborn?
Reporters interview the recently rescued and not one of them says, "No one told
me to leave." They all say the same sorts of things. Each has some kind of
excuse.
"I had a garden hose and was planning to save my house."
"I didn't think that it would get this bad."
"I didn't think that the evacuation order applied to me."
Does this sort of attitude sound familiar to you?
"I just didn't like the approved cell phones, so I got my own."
"I didn't think that the restriction on installing downloaded software applied
to me."
"My code is so clean that I don't need QA."
What percentage of IT departmental time is devoted to rescuing the intransigent?
Of course, we do need to keep in mind that in the IT context, sometimes people
are just resisting policies of monumental stupidity and soul-crushing
inconvenience. But how many of them stop to try to understand the purpose of a
policy they want to violate before violating it?
What should we do with those who blatantly ignore policy? Here are a few
thoughts.
1. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions. While this would be the
most satisfying option, I'm not sure that it's the most expedient. Imagine the
news reports if the Southern California firefighters chose this approach: "I
know that 30 people died, but we warned them." In IT, the equivalent might be,
"We know that the payroll was all wrong, but we told them to scrub the data
before delivering it to us." Probably wouldn't go over too well.
2. Provide unlimited support, no matter how obnoxious the behavior. This is what
we usually end up doing. We in IT want to be helpful, and we usually tamp down
our frustration and outrage and get on with fixing whatever problem people bring
to us. Of course, by doing this, we inadvertently encourage future infractions.
People learn that we will help them no matter what they do.
3. Provide support within defined limits. We can provide support on a
work-permitting basis for unsupported items. Or we can prioritize work,
providing support for rogue users only after we have completed support of those
who respect the rules. If we can offer help in a way that is defined by a
policy, it can help set expectations about what we will and won't do.
The intransigent will always be with us. We may as well plan how we'll respond
to them before we allow ourselves to be drawn into the void of risking our work
for those who don't respect the time and rules of others.
© Copyright 2008 by Computerworld Inc., One Speen Street, Framingham, MA, 01701. Reprinted by permission of
Computerworld. All Rights Reserved.
