why is it that CIOs don't have to be trained in IT???

WillTech105

shednik wrote: »

Itdaddy,

All I see is you going on and on about this one person, I haven't even looked at the article yet. I can tell you this though you go and work for any large company and there will be many Managers, VPs, and CXOs out there who do not have a degree related to IT and there will be some that do. Any way the job of management is to manage people, projects, processes, purchasing, and other similar functions. None of my management would I consider extremely technical and once you move into management you start to lose your techiness. They get inundated with propsals, budgets, projects, staff meetings, staffing, team building, administrative work, and the list can go on. So where is there a need for them to be technical, the people who report to him are the ones that need to be technical. I could go on for awhile about this but I've learned once you hit a certain point in your life there are 2 paths to take technical or managerial. At that point you need to focus on one of the paths, and leave behind some of the other. I suggest you read some of the free stuff off this website it will put some things I'm getting at in perspective. The Pragmatic CSO: 12 Steps to Being a Security Master

Also anyone who's been in IT for 30 years in different roles should be entitled to a position like that if they have put in the effort and are willing to be challenged. Like its been said a CIO is more of a business position then anything, my CIO isn't very techie anymore. He's a smart guy and had to work his way up there over nearly 20 years as well.

I agree with shednik, although it would be nice to have the CIO still in the loop technically s/he has other business reponsiblities that dont make them a tech anymore which is understandable. On the flip side, don't completely ignore the fact that IT changes. Keep abreast of news, changes, updates, ect in the indursty. Know the theory -- not necessarily how to do it (ex: know that a router can also function as a DHCP server...CIO doesnt need to know the exact commands to configure the router). But if your going to go ahead with a project/purcahse consult your technical staff and be open to new ideas, ect.

Nothing is worse than ignoring the abilitiy/potential ability of your staff -- I've been there and done that and all it does is create resentment.

LTParis

What is even worse, and yes there are worse things when a CIO, CTO or other directly related manager is heading or in charge of important IT decisions is when they try to employ a for-profit model to IT departments.

IT, by it's nature, is a liability to most companies. It costs money for salaries, upkeep, programming, support, etc and they are very few business (outside of high-volume e-Commerce) that can have a IT department become a source of income for the company. Because of that it's very difficult to ever properly operate a IT deparment when you have people that treat IT only as a loss, and not as a necessity towards their business.

This of course does not absolves the non-IT smarts CIO/CTO/etc manager. I don't know how many times I have heard that "IT is just not that hard" and "my 12 year old can do X in 2 weeks, why can't you". No amount of explaining can change these mindsets and those IT deparments are always fighting an uphill battle.

IT is largly a thankless job. A good day in IT is when nothing breaks. A good day in IT is when you can migrate X and it has zero impact to the end user. Even when you launch updated software (e.g. Office 2003 to Office 2007) IT departments are looked at the cause that the ribbon is different than the "old way" and it has a initial negative impact on the user. And it's likely that these non-tech CIO/CTO/etc managers are not the proper advocates they need to be to their IT teams.

All that being said, after 13 years I still love IT.

itdaddy

I understand what they do. It is just when you are talking about technology you had better know what you are talking about. CIOs deal with technlogy and money and people. Too many times I have seen CIOs that I deal with not just my boss. Sorry lack of a better example. And 30 years hopping from job to job doesn't qualifiy you to deserve the CIO positions. I am sure by the looks of it this lady I was referring to did earn her position. All I was saying is when you speak of technology and such and CIOs work more with technology and they have to judge who they hire and being good at what they do. They have to understand whether they are being snowed or not. I have seen CIOs hire people that were as good at BSing like them. More than my boss. I guess you guys have great CIOs good for you. Forgive me if I seemed so cutting. The companies I am referring to with the CIO have 2000 employees some more like 10,000.
I have had to work directly with them...and when you are talking about technology it would be nice if they really knew..I know when I become a CIO, I wil respect my engineers and know when someone is blowing smoke. Okay another example. You have a nurse and a doctor who is giong to help your child out. Your child is sick. Who are you going to choose to really take care of your child? The doctor or the Nurse???
It is a matter of being alittle more IT savvy than just knowing how to use a mouse...and run some software. Just because you can run MS office really well doesn't qualifiy you as IT trainied. You just know office....
This is good debate....and you all have valid arguments...thanks for challenging me..awesome! All I was saying is really CIOs need to know more to understand things better with their engineers and techs.....that is all...but I am still going to pick the doctor!

WillTech105

LTParis wrote: »

What is even worse, and yes there are worse things when a CIO, CTO or other directly related manager is heading or in charge of important IT decisions is when they try to employ a for-profit model to IT departments.

IT, by it's nature, is a liability to most companies. It costs money for salaries, upkeep, programming, support, etc and they are very few business (outside of high-volume e-Commerce) that can have a IT department become a source of income for the company. Because of that it's very difficult to ever properly operate a IT deparment when you have people that treat IT only as a loss, and not as a necessity towards their business.

This of course does not absolves the non-IT smarts CIO/CTO/etc manager. I don't know how many times I have heard that "IT is just not that hard" and "my 12 year old can do X in 2 weeks, why can't you". No amount of explaining can change these mindsets and those IT deparments are always fighting an uphill battle.

IT is largly a thankless job. A good day in IT is when nothing breaks. A good day in IT is when you can migrate X and it has zero impact to the end user. Even when you launch updated software (e.g. Office 2003 to Office 2007) IT departments are looked at the cause that the ribbon is different than the "old way" and it has a initial negative impact on the user. And it's likely that these non-tech CIO/CTO/etc managers are not the proper advocates they need to be to their IT teams.

All that being said, after 13 years I still love IT.

LTParis you make a very valid point that I kinda slipped on myself! At the end of the day ultimately its business and if the company isnt profiting somethings wrong!!

IT is a necessary evil in the eyes of the suits. Yes your maintaining,updating, maybe introducting new technologies here and there but for the bulk of it its as almost if your paying employees (aka consultants) to come in and work for your company to maintain an environment already in place. Its not everyday we have 100s of PC rollouts or a new server is installed or a new Cisco router is put in. I can def. see the "business" view of this. Ultimaltely its about the money so if a CIO doesnt know his/her field and spends money without knowing what their doing its a liability to the company to keep that CIO. -- NOT PROMOTING THEM! -- (honestly i have no idea what my last company was thinking!)

itdaddy

Hey guys, I may have gone a little over board but my whole point is I think a CIO should have a good decent IT background before he gets pushed to CIO. And 30 years working that hard I am sure the lady deserved it....and I am not trying to dash anyone's dreams of being an IT executive. I just think they should know what they are saying and to respect their engineers and admins and what they have to say. And if you have had some trench experience you will understand more what the IT guys are saying so you can relay it to management. But if you have little experience and you dream up impossible job requirements that is what I am saying. I have worked for many companies with other jobs. I was also in the USAF (10 years) 6 years as a manager so I know what I am talking about. I ran a crue of Aerospace technicians and they respected me since my background was like theirs. But when what we called a butter-bar captain came on the scene who had the big background but no experience, man did it make things rough on everyone. He or she didn’t understand what we were dealing with and they are your voice. I have plenty of experience to know what I am talking about and CIOs need to be required to have a much deeper experience before they start doing what they do. And they do way more than manage assets and people...I know first hand... forgive me dudes for dashing anyone's dreams I am sure you guys are more than qualified for your jobs because you have worked in the IT trenches and yes LTParis is right IT is a thankless job! I love IT but it is thanksless..really..CIO here I come!


LTParis said:

And it's likely that these non-tech CIO/CTO/etc managers are not the proper advocates they need to be to their IT teams.

WillTech105 said:

Ultimately its about the money so if a CIO doesn’t know his/her field and spends money without knowing what their doing its a liability to the company to keep that CIO. -- NOT PROMOTING THEM! -- (honestly i have no idea what my last company was thinking!)

OMG the above statement that WillTech105 said sums up my entire point.

I guess I am hell bent on this opinion of mine because I was in a situation where my boss said no raises for next year due to budget cuts? I said why are we spending so much money on this and that that wasn't in budget and that we don’t need? We are spending too much unnecessary money that is why no raises?? and basically my comments were ignored. I asked specific questions on why we needed the so called advance technology and to support really why we needed it. Nothing!
Look at our country USA people are spending too much money on too many gizmos that they could have IT staff fix themselves..

All of you have had some great points. Thank you for this discussion. Thanks!
All of you guys I know will make your dreams happen. everyone on this tech forum
I know works very hard...and you deserve it..

Go for it!

rsutton

There is generally a buffer between the business side of things and the technical side of things. Sometimes the buffer is the IT Manager, IT Director or maybe the CIO. Either way to be effective in that buffer position you need to understand what is going on in both areas. If the IT Director is the buffer between the business and the technicians then he can be very effective is he has a high level understanding of what is happening on the technical side. Like someone else said, he doesn't need to know how implement a VPN, but he should understand from a few thousand feet how it works. If he does not, he will not be able to make very good business decisions (the other side of his buffer).

Sorry I realize I used the word "buffer" alot there but I think it is the perfect word to describe that persons position.

wedge1988

send her an e-mail. lol. I get your point.

I agree that they should understand the technology, even if its only enough to understand terminology, not how to do it. I work in a school, which is totally different to business. I have lots of different challeneges to face (like the fact software is developed for windows NT 3.0 or Windows 95)

For me, i think our senior management and the head should understand some of the terminology of ICT, its their job to understand so that they can understand me and my feedback.

I get frustrated the most when they dont listen because they dont understand what im trying to say. I think that they really need to understand the behind the scenes. ICT is really complicated when you get to a certain level. If i can make the senior management and the head understand this complexity then they should start to understand that i know exactly how to run IT systems.

It seems as though this is the basis for your argument itdaddy. They dont understand the effort required to implement the solution. All they really see is the benefit and the ideas behind it all.

Yes, they have responsibilities in all areas to do with your work, but id argue that if you could show your bosses the benefits to doing it your way, and the reasons why then you should get better feedback from them.

I could go on forever, but the underlying thing is this: From a business perspective, they dont really care, they just want you to get the job done. It's not their intention to upset you (in fact its the opposite) its just that they see ideas from the head of the business and decide to take actions based on that, rather than work from below up.

Of course all businesses differ; but generally its always been down the tree. ie. you may give them an idea but they'll portrey it as their own. Or ignore you and tell you what sombody else has said (they dont have time for proper things!)

itdaddy

Wedge1988 said:

you may give them an idea but they'll portrey it as their own.

Yes you got my point. And what sucks it happens way too often. I will email that CIO chick doing it now..good idea!
hhahhahah

I guess it is about selling yourself . But it happens way too often.
The buffer you guys are right need to understand this too.That is all I am saying. When and if I become CIO I will respect my IT Engineers.
Been there done that! and I will be able to converse with them and their great ideas much better than someone who has not, and I know this will be able to make our company even do better....It is about respect and understanding where each other is coming from. I dont expect them to know what I am doing in super detail but the basics would be nice but you guys would be surpised how much BS is flying around no wonder our world econ is so jacked. Noone is listening and respecting each other's ideas and thoughts...IT can do so much more than to just buy this new gizmo this is the fix and so on...you guys are catching on...haahah cool dudes cool - see you at the top!

JockVSJock

ITDaddy, in case you missed it. General Motors (GM) has hired a guy from a phone compandy (AT&T) to try and turn the company around. He flat out admitted, 'I don't know anything about cars.' I'll even post the URL for you to read from the Bloomberg website:

Whitacre Vows to ?Learn About Cars? as GM Chairman (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

itdaddy

JockVSJock


wow amazing....but these are the guys who work for a company 2 weeks quit and still get their 22 million severance pay. I have read many articles on CEOs get hired to turn companies around and bam quit 2 weeks later and they still get paid their retirement doe..But they are the ones that right the rules..CIO here I come!...he must be a good listener..

NetAdmin2436

JockVSJock wrote: »

ITDaddy, in case you missed it. General Motors (GM) has hired a guy from a phone compandy (AT&T) to try and turn the company around. He flat out admitted, 'I don't know anything about cars.' I'll even post the URL for you to read from the Bloomberg website:

Whitacre Vows to ?Learn About Cars? as GM Chairman (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Exactly. Sorta like when that loser Bob Nardeli (former GE CEO) took over Home Depot (my former employeer) with NO retail experience and did less than a 1/2 a$$ job, got paid 210 MILLION dollars as a golden parachute when the board members started to wise up and pressure him to leave... then went to GM and .....well, we know how that turned out. Bankruptcy! (granted, he inherited a lot of problems, but regardless acquired the largest car maker in US and bankrupted them) I worked for Home Depot 8 years after High School and during my college and I can't honestly say I know ANY former HD employees that like him. I'd venture to say the same about [former] or current GM (Goverment Motors) employees.

"CNBC named Nardelli as one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time""

Sorry for the rant, but

A) I hate Bob Nardelli

and my point in all this:

it just goes to show it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know (and how long you can BS your way through). Right or wrong, it's just business decisions, Bottom line.


PS: I didn't read the whole thread, just saw former GM Bob Nardelli's name mention and wanted to vent.

WillTech105

Its all office politics.

The better you can sell yourself/BS your way to your superiors you'll get ahead. Granted some people do have the skills can come through at top but its mostly either BSing your way to the top or being at a company for so long they eventually make you the top dog.

djhss68

I'll add that even today, a degree in Math is perfectly acceptable in getting a job as a programmer. I've seen it asked for in a few job adds.

Also, this is the late 70's were talking here. IT and programming were not exactly well known.

itdaddy

NetAdmin2436

yep it is who you know...

I cant wait to know all these execs so I can kiss arse get my big CIO job.
never ever have to earn a cert or degree again after my MBA is done! yes!

I am breaking from the pack guys! But you can be rest assured I am on your side..I will always respect my engineers..always! hee heee!

now back to my lowley life of ...

Neeko

Here's your interpretation of what she said:

itdaddy wrote: »

I actually didn’t know what computer programmers (my point exactly)

Here is what she actually said

One of the UK’s most high-profile female technologists, Catherine Doran, recounts her spectacular ascent to chief information officer for Network Rail as if it were a happy accident.
‘I actually didn’t know what computer programmers did but I saw an advert in my local paper after university and was interested to find out rather than becoming a maths teacher,’ she says.
Needless to say Doran got the job. It was the first rung of a career ladder which would lead her to her present role in which she has responsibility for the operation of all of Network Rail’s computer systems, as well as systems development and responsibility for data management and records at a national level.
Doran’s career path to chief information officer at the organisation started with an arts degree in maths and geography, which she was awarded in her homeland of Ireland, followed by an early career as a pure technologist. ‘My career path was trainee programmer, programmer, team leader, designer, project leader and so on,’ she says.

So she has worked from the bottom to the top, starting with University then taking on the challenge of doing programming in a professional environment with no significant experience.

Seems like you've got this completely wrong. She obviously has experience in IT and has worked her way up. No doubt she has managerial skills to go with it which is why she is in the position she is.

TravR1

Looks like the general consensus is people don't care if the CIO is not an expert providing they listen to the guys that know...

and that Bob Nardelli is not popular.

itdaddy

Again, neeko
what my point is this. Just because you are dam n good at "MS office" does not qualify you as having IT experience..and just because you can plug and jug math equations doesn't qualify you as a programmer period.

but back then you could sweep the floor and become a civil engineer with a few classes in trig...I have seen it first hand back then...but in todays IT world, you have CIOs who dont know "Jack nor his sister Jane!" that are shipwrecking companies and as a result the jobs of many! that is my point.
CIO here I come!

Neeko

itdaddy wrote: »

Again, neeko
what my point is this. Just because you are dam n good at "MS office" does not qualify you as having IT experience..and just because you can plug and jug math equations doesn't qualify you as a programmer period.

but back then you could sweep the floor and become a civil engineer with a few classes in trig...I have seen it first hand back then...but in todays IT world, you have CIOs who dont know "Jack nor his sister Jane!" that are shipwrecking companies and as a result the jobs of many! that is my point.
CIO here I come!

The person we're talking about has a whole heap of IT experience, she started out as a programmer and moved onto being team leader, project manager etc. Of course she has IT experience, it's there in black and white.

You're being completely patronising about her whole career, she has started at the bottom and a combination of IT and management skills have put her at the top. What's so hard to accept here? You're making far too many assumptions based on little information, and they're all the wrong assumptions if you ask me.

It's got nothing to do with math, she WAS a programmer. That's what she did, at trainee and higher levels. She is technically trained and has experience, just accept it.

deneb829

itdaddy wrote: »

I see it all the time. spending money on stuff we dont even need then when you confront them on it they use their authority to smash you down.

This is an interesting topic for me because I have been going through this for the past 18 months. I was hired to replace a retiring network administrator. I got to work right away on analyzing the problems about the slow networks. 7 sites, each site with between 100-250 computers all connected to 100mbps unmanaged switches. Each unmanaged switch was connect to an old Cisco 2900 by one of the 100mbps ports. Some of the switches were 10mbps. A single, flat network.

Unfortunately, the old administrator leaving created a political vacuum. I was taking orders from a math teacher who understood little about network infrastructure, but told me in a meeting that she understands networks and knows everything that I know about computers and networks. Uh ... no. I have been doing this for 15 years, with almost 10 in networking, and I certainly don't know everything.

I was told to give every computer (nearly 1000) static IP addresses because of network issues they have been having over the past few years and the computers with static IP addresses have not experienced the problems. Well, 10 minutes with Wireshark revealed rouge DHCP servers (wireless access points routers with their default settings installed by users). The problem was fixed in a day, but when I explained what the problem was it was like talking to a wall. Another location "needed" a new server because the installed one was 'messed up'. Again, a few minutes on site revealed the DNS settings on the clients were pointing to the external, authoritative DNS server and not the domain controller. When I adjusted the DHCP server to point at the Domain Controller, **it hit the fan - despite the fact that 90% of the computers on that network were static. When the new server was installed - surprise! the old problems still existed. There's dozens of stories like this.

Every available dollar seemed to go to new computers and servers instead of the infrastructure. Users were frustrated when new computers seemed to run as slow as the old ones. I was told to fix a newly purchased $16,000 video conferencing system between sites, when I explained 'again' about the infrastructure issues, I was told to just make it work. I was excluded from meetings with network and internet vendors. When she announced that we were going to VoIP, I balked. "We can't prioritize a single packet on this network, and most of the connections between sites are single T1s!" to which I was told that I was not a visionary and it was going to happen. It got back to me that the idea was finally dropped when two VoIP vendors came onsite and told her that our networks would not support it - of course I was excluded from these meetings.

The just like that a couple of weeks ago - she resigns. She took another job somewhere else. Turns out she was making alot of enemies. Every chance she got, she got into someone else's business and started treating them the same way - even though she wasn't anyone's boss. I don't know the real reasons she left, but she is someone else's problem now. Right away, people started coming to me for IT decisions (what I was hired to do in the first place). I have been able to effect more change in 2 weeks than in the past 18 months. Money's tight, but it looks like we're going to start getting some decent switches and internet upgrades.

djhss68

Nice post deneb.

ccie15672

< deleted >

Turgon

deneb829 wrote: »

This is an interesting topic for me because I have been going through this for the past 18 months. I was hired to replace a retiring network administrator. I got to work right away on analyzing the problems about the slow networks. 7 sites, each site with between 100-250 computers all connected to 100mbps unmanaged switches. Each unmanaged switch was connect to an old Cisco 2900 by one of the 100mbps ports. Some of the switches were 10mbps. A single, flat network.

Unfortunately, the old administrator leaving created a political vacuum. I was taking orders from a math teacher who understood little about network infrastructure, but told me in a meeting that she understands networks and knows everything that I know about computers and networks. Uh ... no. I have been doing this for 15 years, with almost 10 in networking, and I certainly don't know everything.

I was told to give every computer (nearly 1000) static IP addresses because of network issues they have been having over the past few years and the computers with static IP addresses have not experienced the problems. Well, 10 minutes with Wireshark revealed rouge DHCP servers (wireless access points routers with their default settings installed by users). The problem was fixed in a day, but when I explained what the problem was it was like talking to a wall. Another location "needed" a new server because the installed one was 'messed up'. Again, a few minutes on site revealed the DNS settings on the clients were pointing to the external, authoritative DNS server and not the domain controller. When I adjusted the DHCP server to point at the Domain Controller, **it hit the fan - despite the fact that 90% of the computers on that network were static. When the new server was installed - surprise! the old problems still existed. There's dozens of stories like this.

Every available dollar seemed to go to new computers and servers instead of the infrastructure. Users were frustrated when new computers seemed to run as slow as the old ones. I was told to fix a newly purchased $16,000 video conferencing system between sites, when I explained 'again' about the infrastructure issues, I was told to just make it work. I was excluded from meetings with network and internet vendors. When she announced that we were going to VoIP, I balked. "We can't prioritize a single packet on this network, and most of the connections between sites are single T1s!" to which I was told that I was not a visionary and it was going to happen. It got back to me that the idea was finally dropped when two VoIP vendors came onsite and told her that our networks would not support it - of course I was excluded from these meetings.

The just like that a couple of weeks ago - she resigns. She took another job somewhere else. Turns out she was making alot of enemies. Every chance she got, she got into someone else's business and started treating them the same way - even though she wasn't anyone's boss. I don't know the real reasons she left, but she is someone else's problem now. Right away, people started coming to me for IT decisions (what I was hired to do in the first place). I have been able to effect more change in 2 weeks than in the past 18 months. Money's tight, but it looks like we're going to start getting some decent switches and internet upgrades.

Well now that the witch has left you have an opportunity. See if you can prepare a presentation or report for the seniors to get some backing for all the infrastructure changes they need to help you drive through. I dentify problems, costs to business cause by those problems and propose solutions in a planned manner. Protection and support from senior management is what you need if you are going to make a real difference.

WillTech105

deneb829, that is why I got out of the traditional IT dept. Too much politics.

I recently started working for a IT Consulting company. I was surprised to see even the President of the company is IT savy and he goes out and install firewalls, routers, PCs, ect. I was REALLY surprised by this that he just wasnt sitting behind a desk. I later learned that hes the owner of the company so its no surprise he'd do anything to get the job done.

We have a VP who knows the theory of IT but not the actual commands to configure. She mostly speaks with clients and makes recommendations and even I was surprised when she stated "its all about BSing the client and playing the right politics with them to make them happy". I was like "WOW -- and this is coming from the VP!"

Ultimately we don't screw our clients over. From what I see everything is done the "right" way and no half-ass work is done. I can see now though that moving up/gaining clients is basically the art of selling yourself via the proper technical knowledge and speaking skills. Sorry to anyone else who thinks otherwise but from my experience I 100% believe in my statement.

Riskbling

deneb829 wrote: »

This is an interesting topic for me because I have been going through this for the past 18 months. I was hired to replace a retiring network administrator. I got to work right away on analyzing the problems about the slow networks. 7 sites, each site with between 100-250 computers all connected to 100mbps unmanaged switches. Each unmanaged switch was connect to an old Cisco 2900 by one of the 100mbps ports. Some of the switches were 10mbps. A single, flat network.

Unfortunately, the old administrator leaving created a political vacuum. I was taking orders from a math teacher who understood little about network infrastructure, but told me in a meeting that she understands networks and knows everything that I know about computers and networks. Uh ... no. I have been doing this for 15 years, with almost 10 in networking, and I certainly don't know everything.

I was told to give every computer (nearly 1000) static IP addresses because of network issues they have been having over the past few years and the computers with static IP addresses have not experienced the problems. Well, 10 minutes with Wireshark revealed rouge DHCP servers (wireless access points routers with their default settings installed by users). The problem was fixed in a day, but when I explained what the problem was it was like talking to a wall. Another location "needed" a new server because the installed one was 'messed up'. Again, a few minutes on site revealed the DNS settings on the clients were pointing to the external, authoritative DNS server and not the domain controller. When I adjusted the DHCP server to point at the Domain Controller, **it hit the fan - despite the fact that 90% of the computers on that network were static. When the new server was installed - surprise! the old problems still existed. There's dozens of stories like this.

Every available dollar seemed to go to new computers and servers instead of the infrastructure. Users were frustrated when new computers seemed to run as slow as the old ones. I was told to fix a newly purchased $16,000 video conferencing system between sites, when I explained 'again' about the infrastructure issues, I was told to just make it work. I was excluded from meetings with network and internet vendors. When she announced that we were going to VoIP, I balked. "We can't prioritize a single packet on this network, and most of the connections between sites are single T1s!" to which I was told that I was not a visionary and it was going to happen. It got back to me that the idea was finally dropped when two VoIP vendors came onsite and told her that our networks would not support it - of course I was excluded from these meetings.

The just like that a couple of weeks ago - she resigns. She took another job somewhere else. Turns out she was making alot of enemies. Every chance she got, she got into someone else's business and started treating them the same way - even though she wasn't anyone's boss. I don't know the real reasons she left, but she is someone else's problem now. Right away, people started coming to me for IT decisions (what I was hired to do in the first place). I have been able to effect more change in 2 weeks than in the past 18 months. Money's tight, but it looks like we're going to start getting some decent switches and internet upgrades.

I really enjoyed reading that, you tried to tell them!

itdaddy

deneb

God bless you man! I feel you pain but you got me laughing (because it is the truth) not all places but it sure is in a lot of places..because they can weild MS Office they are qualitifed to lead..but I like that CEO who was doing his own work, that is fantastic...cool! that is a leader down in the trenches with the boys! but awesome story and very well written too thanks for a real world story awesome!

WillTech105

good stuff from you too. I really like truthful stories..And I think it is awesome when you have real IT people like us in their leading and not people who push a pencil and can BS real good. The problem is they can BS other people who know nothing of IT
but when a so called person who knows IT gets around us IT gurus, they do not stand a chance. I can smell a fake a mile away! just by asking them questions and watch them get mad and throw their authority around...good stuff guys good stuff

manny355

very good discussion.

I think that the original intent of the post was to point out that there are alot of CIOs out there who don't know jack about IT. This statement is an obvious statement.

Also, what I take from the original post was that it was asking for feedback, possibly discussion on what other IT professionals such as ourselves are finding out in the market.

I don't think that the poster intended to disparrage the lady in the article, but to touch on a broader topic of unqualified people in charge who shouldn't be.

My opinion is that if you are a CIO then you should have some good knowledge about not only business but also IT systems. You don't have to be a guru or some type of system expert but you should know something about the industry basics.

Know having said that, it is possible for a CIO to know about industry basics while have a degree in something other than IT...but at that level...I think we should expect that CIOs who have degrees in something other than IT should possesses some type of industry certification.

I do believe that the Industry in general would benefit from more CIOs having both a business and IT background...which is what I think the orginal poster was trying to get across (but I could be wrong).

I think that there should be a standard that all CIOs should meet, just like there is a set of standards for Network Admins, System Admins, Desktop Support Techs...etc. Any of those titles usually require education at a certain level and in a certain area...in todays world it is really difficult to just have an english degree no certifications and 5 yrs of it experience and get a call back for for a Network Admin position.

In the same scenario if that same person had a CIS degree, some MS certs, Some Cisco certs...some other industry certs and the 5 yrs experience...his/her phone would be ringing off the hook...

I guess this boils down to the age old question of degree vs certifications vs experience which one is more important. If you can make it happen with just a degree or just certifications or just experience then more power to you.

I want the best possible results so I got all three.

deneb829

I don't mind IT managers not knowing everything about networking. My last manager came from a programming background, but at least he knew that he didn't know everything. A good manager needs to surround themselves with people who know how to do the jobs that need to be done, and that manager needs to trust those people. In fact, most of my managers were like this. In 15 years, I can only think of two or three who were this bad, but this one was by far the worst.

Turgon, I was able to meet with some of the seniors, it looks like they're fine with upgrading the infrastructure. In fact, they didn't care much for the details - they just want it fixed. Since money's tight, they wanted it prioritized based on site. At least things are leaning in the right direction.

I am pretty excited at being able to design the upgrades - VLANS on managed layer 2 switches with a gigabit layer 3 core - one of the sites can be upgraded to 10mbps fiber back to the main office (where all the site traffic comes before getting dropped off on the internet) the rest will probably get upgraded to 3mbps for now. The first thing on the list is an ASA to replace the PIX 525 - then a few work arounds for two of the really bad sites. The other 5 sites can have the switches replaced outright on the existing cat5e and mmf. I can hardly wait to get started.

ULWiz

blargoe wrote: »

What's worse is when you have a CIO that knows neither Business nor IT....

LoL....................

itdaddy

Manny

that is exactly what I was saying and you said it better thank I..I am sorry dudes if I came across knocking that lady down. But I have experienced this very same thing and I have seen it many times. Us IT experts have to bust our butts to constantly stay up on technology and meet certain cert criteria and so should those "C" executives who run the IT departments and seem to never have to know anything of IT. If I am going to be the head, I freaking better know how to not get snowed by IT Vendors selling their gadgets!! And I had better respect my engineers and listen to them. Too often in reality CIOs and IT Managers do not do this.....they are executives and live in a fantasy world of give me more IT gizmos! The IT shop with the most gizmos is bound to win kind of philosophy!

and I wasn't trying to be demeaning.....and I don't care if I am wrong..if you can explain to me I am wrong and support it well, I can admit when I am cracked...(any takers?) hahahahaha thanks guys
this was a very nice discussion. You guys are very helpful and very knowledgable on what you supported..Thanks..

-Robert

Turgon

deneb829 wrote: »

I don't mind IT managers not knowing everything about networking. My last manager came from a programming background, but at least he knew that he didn't know everything. A good manager needs to surround themselves with people who know how to do the jobs that need to be done, and that manager needs to trust those people. In fact, most of my managers were like this. In 15 years, I can only think of two or three who were this bad, but this one was by far the worst.

Turgon, I was able to meet with some of the seniors, it looks like they're fine with upgrading the infrastructure. In fact, they didn't care much for the details - they just want it fixed. Since money's tight, they wanted it prioritized based on site. At least things are leaning in the right direction.

I am pretty excited at being able to design the upgrades - VLANS on managed layer 2 switches with a gigabit layer 3 core - one of the sites can be upgraded to 10mbps fiber back to the main office (where all the site traffic comes before getting dropped off on the internet) the rest will probably get upgraded to 3mbps for now. The first thing on the list is an ASA to replace the PIX 525 - then a few work arounds for two of the really bad sites. The other 5 sites can have the switches replaced outright on the existing cat5e and mmf. I can hardly wait to get started.

That's great news deneb829. They will leave the details to you and rightly so. Just keep them informed about the general progress and keep reporting back the good news as things improve around the place. Good luck with it all!