No ID for IT
Australian IT - Tech courses in trouble (Simon Hayes, JUNE 14, 2005): "Bond University decided last week that the faculty of information technology had to go, and it was dumped with little fanfare and even less publicity."
I spend my working life implementing systems that support businesses or government organisations. Don't get me wrong - I do understand that information technology must support business or government activities. In the commercial world there isn't a lot of room for technology for technology’s sake. And although it’s rarely managed well, the business world already understands research and development, and commercialising innovation, so there is already a place for ‘pure’ IT in business.
However, the thought of universities removing the IT faculty altogether and making it 'part of business' is ridiculous and risky. Even before this move I have noticed a trend towards second year IT students being unable do perform simple programming tasks. University courses are already filling their information technology courses with business subject at the expense of IT knowledge.
There is tremendous room for improvement in IT courses. But giving up and simply teaching business or general management is not the answer. IT courses could benefit from aligning to the huge diversity of IT roles already within the IT industry that aren't addressed by their courses. There are few IT courses that will help you be a 'solution architect', 'delivery architect', 'enterprise architect', 'business analyst' (at a senior, business-industry-focused level), 'Programme Director' (with specific IT industry knowledge), etc...
The article I've linked to references a trend downwards in enrolments in IT courses. Other reports are showing an increasing demand for IT professionals. While this might the result of a phase shifted demand and supply cycle that isn't the only interpretation. My guess is that the already existing trends of dumbing down IT to include too much business or General Management for Dummies actually means that non-IT graduates are more valuable to the market.
If universities are serious about taking on the challenge of providing enough skilled resources to the IT industry they can't give in just because nobody wants to enrol in their courses. To met their obligations to society the universities need to ensure their courses are of a high enough quality to make students want to enrol. Part of a student’s assessment of quality is if the course gives them more of a chance of a fruitful IT career than hours of tinkering and a couple of IT contracts won on the strength of their web site.
Lastly, the strict discipline of separating (and yet aligning) responsibilities that is required to successfully implement information system is actually something that the business world could learn from. I call this discipline 'architecting' but even within IT circles references to 'architecture' tend to be taken to be technically focused. And this is even more reason to allow IT to have it's own faculty. We have no much to learn.
I spend my working life implementing systems that support businesses or government organisations. Don't get me wrong - I do understand that information technology must support business or government activities. In the commercial world there isn't a lot of room for technology for technology’s sake. And although it’s rarely managed well, the business world already understands research and development, and commercialising innovation, so there is already a place for ‘pure’ IT in business.
However, the thought of universities removing the IT faculty altogether and making it 'part of business' is ridiculous and risky. Even before this move I have noticed a trend towards second year IT students being unable do perform simple programming tasks. University courses are already filling their information technology courses with business subject at the expense of IT knowledge.
There is tremendous room for improvement in IT courses. But giving up and simply teaching business or general management is not the answer. IT courses could benefit from aligning to the huge diversity of IT roles already within the IT industry that aren't addressed by their courses. There are few IT courses that will help you be a 'solution architect', 'delivery architect', 'enterprise architect', 'business analyst' (at a senior, business-industry-focused level), 'Programme Director' (with specific IT industry knowledge), etc...
The article I've linked to references a trend downwards in enrolments in IT courses. Other reports are showing an increasing demand for IT professionals. While this might the result of a phase shifted demand and supply cycle that isn't the only interpretation. My guess is that the already existing trends of dumbing down IT to include too much business or General Management for Dummies actually means that non-IT graduates are more valuable to the market.
If universities are serious about taking on the challenge of providing enough skilled resources to the IT industry they can't give in just because nobody wants to enrol in their courses. To met their obligations to society the universities need to ensure their courses are of a high enough quality to make students want to enrol. Part of a student’s assessment of quality is if the course gives them more of a chance of a fruitful IT career than hours of tinkering and a couple of IT contracts won on the strength of their web site.
Lastly, the strict discipline of separating (and yet aligning) responsibilities that is required to successfully implement information system is actually something that the business world could learn from. I call this discipline 'architecting' but even within IT circles references to 'architecture' tend to be taken to be technically focused. And this is even more reason to allow IT to have it's own faculty. We have no much to learn.
posted by Matthew at
5:28 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home