There’s a great blog post on the Harvard Business Review titled “Here’s How Managers Can Be Replaced by Software” written by Devin Fidler.

The article discussed how a prototype software application automated the decision and delegation process to create a 124-page research report.

The software was named “iCEO”, which I expect to be trademarked by Apple Inc. soon!

The post explained that after spending a few hours configuring iCEO and then setting it to run, iCEO:

routed tasks across 23 people from around the world, including the creation of 60 images and graphs, followed by formatting and preparation.

The processes were so smoothly operated that the team was simply spectators.

We rarely needed to intervene, even to check the quality of individual components of the report as they were submitted to iCEO, or spend time hiring staff, because QA and HR were also automated by iCEO.

In the end, the full report was created in just weeks, compared to a traditional management-employee structure that may have taken months to complete.

This is awesome if you think about it… unless you’re a manager that is.

There’s an especially important point to note here that you may have missed: all of the actual work was outsourced via Elance and Odesk.

So it’s not only the manager’s job that may be at risk, but also the workers under his employ.

The Knowledge Worker at Risk

Automation, since the industrial revolution, has threatened jobs of workers. Manual work replaced with mechanised ones caused jobs to no longer be worthwhile. Now we have thinking work being replaced by computers and software.

In his book, “The Zero Marginal Cost Society“, Jeremy Rifkin mentions that:

Automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence are eliminating human labor quickly in the white-collar and service industries… Secretaries, file clerks, telephone operators, travel agents, bank tellers, cashiers, and countless other white-collar service jobs have all but disappeared in the past 25 years as automation has driven the marginal cost of labor to near zero.

He goes on to later say:

We are in the midst of an epic change (my emphasis) in the nature of work. The First Industrial Revolution ended slave and serf labor. The Second Industrial Revolution dramatically shrank agricultural and craft labor. The Third Industrial Revolution is sunsetting mass wage labor in the manufacturing and service industries and salaried professional labor in large parts of the knowledge sector.

Others are also anticipating this level of disruption to knowledge work.

A 2013 McKinsey Global Institute report predicts that by 2025, the automation of knowledge work would have potentially the greatest economic impact second only to the mobile internet, and exceeding that of the Internet of Things and the Cloud. (See the figure below.)

Time to address the skill gap

As with the industrial revolution, workers have to be ready for the next stage. It means that they need to learn new technologies and new ways of working. Learning skills that can be repetitive, regardless of the complexity, is under threat as they can be replaced with automation.

According to the Institute for the Future, the new worker will be required to have skills such as Social Intelligence, Sense-Making, Novel and Adaptive Thinking, Design Mindset, Computational Thinking, Cognitive Load Management, New Media Literacy, Cross Cultural Competency and Virtual Collaboration.

The challenge we have right now is that the rapid evolution of the Internet, the cloud and automation may change the workplace faster than we can retrain workers to work in this new environment. It means that we have to start training the new workers from the schools.

But this does not mean that we can’t start training for the new era. We can start learning the new skills required, as well as teach it to others before we are out of a job.

What the future holds?

I don’t know what the future holds, but automation offers great opportunities for businesses to function at a far more efficient and economic level than ever before. It means that we can look forward to cheaper and (hopefully) more sustainable goods and services.

It also means that we can let go of mundane and repetitive tasks and focus on creating greater things.

We can choose to fear what the future holds, or look forward to it with excitement and anticipation.

I’m in that latter group.

What about you? What are your thoughts on the future of automation?

Original article: The knowledge worker has a lot to lose if we don't act.'">Will automation eliminate your job? The knowledge worker has a lot to lose if we don't act.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Multi-vendor environments are those where the infrastructure is a combination of devices and products from two or more vendors.

A single-vendor environment is where only one vendor is used. This type of environment is affectionately known as a “<vendor name here> shop”, e.g. a Cisco shop or a Microsoft shop.

So a multi-vendor network environment may use Cisco switches, Juniper routers and Aruba networks for wireless, whereas the single-vendor environment may use only Cisco for its switches, routers and wireless.

There are arguments for and against multi-vendor environments, with the majority of arguments against them coming from vendors who can supply all the devices. Cisco once had a report prepared by Deloitte that discussed the risks of multi-vendor environments such as higher operating risk in service, support, and operational integration.

The Pros and Cons of Multi-Vendor Environments

I have put together my own list of the challenges and the advantages of multi-vendor environments.

Challenges

• Support. You have several people whom you need to contact when you have a problem. You have multiple relationships to maintain, multiple support contracts to renew and multiple SLAs (Service Level Agreements) to keep track of. This can sometimes be overwhelming depending on the number of vendors and devices installed.
• Administration. While devices of the same type may perform the same task, the vendor implementation may be very different. Ask anyone who has managed both a Cisco and a Checkpoint firewall (like me!); while both are firewalls, the configuration is quite different. Someone with a Cisco background may find the Cisco ASA less daunting than someone with a Checkpoint background. You will find that the IT administrators in a multi-vendor environment will have to know and experience much more than those in a single-vendor environment. Some people thrive in multi-vendor environments, while others flounder.
• Troubleshooting. Whenever problems arise, vendors may blame each other for them. Troubleshooting the problem becomes a battle, with IT coming in the middle of it. In a single-vendor environment, that vendor has to take ownership of the problem regardless of the device. I’ve seen instances in single-vendor environments where the tech-support personnel pass tickets between each other while trying to resolve problems, and the IT administrator doesn’t have the headache of mediating between vendors.

Advantages

• Best-in-class features. By using multiple vendors, you can choose the best product with the features that you need and want. You don’t have to settle for a lesser product, or an over-the-top one, simply because you want to stay with the same vendor.
• Leverage. When you’ve made a choice to go with a certain product or vendor, there is a cost to change from that product to another vendor’s product; this is known as the cost of switching. This cost reflects the costs associated with retraining employees, reconfiguring infrastructure, and changing processes. In a single-vendor environment, the cost of switching is high as the IT staff has little knowledge of or experience with other products. Vendors know this and are sometimes complacent about their relationship with the customer. In a multi-vendor environment, the IT staff has more experience and exposure to other products, and there is a lower cost of switching. As a customer, you also have greater leverage as the vendors know that you have options and are willing to exercise them.
• Excitement. While working in a multi-vendor environment can be frustrating sometimes, it is hardly ever boring. IT staff are exposed to a wide variety of devices and technologies, and there is always something new to learn. And since IT is not tied to a vendor, they are free to explore technologies and solutions that other vendors offer that one vendor may not.
• All of your eggs are not in one basket. There is some risk involved in a single-vendor environment. What happens if the vendor makes some drastic management changes? Or what if a company is acquired by a larger rival and then changes the way products are supported? In some cases, the same software codebase is used in different devices within the same vendor, for example Cisco IOS or Juniper JunOS; what happens if there is a security bug in the core code? Then all the products are potentially at risk. Multi-vendor environments reduce that risk.

Choice of environment

By now, you may realise that some businesses may be better-suited for either multi-vendor or single-vendor environments. So how do you choose? Use the following as a guide.

You may like a multi-vendor environment if…

• Your IT infrastructure is relatively small and easy to manage. You can afford to have many vendors without compromising your supportability.
• You want the greatest value for your money and want the flexibility to be able to choose the products and features you want.
• You have an IT team that prefers variety and thrives in an environment that is always changing. They also have a wide range of expertise and experience and are also willing to learn new technologies.

You may like a single-vendor environment if…

• You have a large IT infrastructure, and managing too many vendors may be difficult, especially when uptime and availability is important.
• You prefer simplicity and supportability and are willing to pay extra for that and to have a single person to call.
• Your IT team has invested heavily in learning a certain product range and prefers working in a stable and minimally changing environment. Their range of expertise is limited, but their knowledge of the current infrastructure is outstanding.
• You have a great relationship with the vendor and you are well taken care of.

There are no right or wrong choices when choosing between a multi-vendor or single-vendor environment. Be aware of the advantages and challenges of both, and make the choice that best suits you.

Original article: How to choose between investing with one vendor or many.'">Multi-Vendor or Single-Vendor Environments How to choose between investing with one vendor or many.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

There is a director who works in the same organisation with my client who often expresses his disagreement with the size of the IT department there. The organisation is small with about 90 total employees, while the IT department has 7 employees including the IT director. In his view, the IT department should have no more that 3 users.

I’m not sure where he got that idea from – that there is some standard formula that determines the ratio of IT staff to total employees – and from the comments in the forum, it seems that many people have that same question on their minds.

So let me answer that question for you: There is no standard for IT staff to total employee ratio, nor should there be any.

Industry Averages

The Gartner 2013 Key IT Metrics Report shows that the Cross-Industry average of IT Full Time Employees as a percentage of Total Employees is 5%. In the Banking and Financial services sector, the average is 9.6%, and in the insurance sector is 11.7%. Again, this is the average, which means that some organisations in the sector have less than the average, and some have more.

I dislike the use of industry averages for decision making as it implies striving for mediocrity. In my view, any decision on the size of the IT department using industry averages is stupid and short-sighted. Do you look at industry averages of revenues and say, “our revenues were $2 million, but the industry average is $1 million. Let’s cut back!”? No! So why do the same with staffing requirements?

How Should You Size IT

IT staffing requirements, as for any staffing requirement, all depend on the needs of the organisation.

Business Growth

Is the organisation growing? Then you may find that support issues are not being resolved in a timely manner, and you may need more staff. If more services are being brought on-stream, then again you may either need additional staff or skills to support that service and the necessary infrastructure.

Your staff will also be required to have the time necessary to figure out how to grow the services to meet the growing business, which means that they can’t be 100% allocated to fighting fires, that is, only addressing support issues. You may even find that it’s not so much the quantity of staff that’s important, but the quality. You will need staff that know how to get you where you want to go.

Is the business shrinking? If it’s because of competition, then you may need to invest more in IT – both in services and in skills – to improve your competitiveness. If it’s because of market or environmental conditions, then that’s a more complex matter, and and solutions vary on a case by case basis.

IT Dependence

What about your services? If your IT services is critical to your business and highly utilised, then having a high number of staff may be critical to keeping your business going. For some organisations, even outsourcing certain functions is out of the question because of the value of the service being provided.

If, on the other hand, your IT services are not that critical to the business, then a low number of staff may be required, and you may be able to outsource much of the support to outside parties.

What about your infrastructure? If you are outsourcing the IT infrastructure, such as using a cloud service or another managed service, you may find that you need less staff.

Data Security

Is your data highly valuable? Well, all data is valuable, but some is more valuable than others. Your business may consider that financial and customer data is important and everything else is not. In this case, you may find that a small number of staff is required to keep that data secure.

However, if you have much more data to secure, such as in the banking sector, you need a larger amount of staff to ensure least privilege, and to have the required checks and balances in place.

IT Staff Utilisation

Does your IT staff have too much to do? If you have IT staff that’s 100% allocated to tasks at all times, then there’s a problem whenever that person needs to go on vacation or is sick. Ensure that you have redundancy so that work can continue even of a person is absent.

However, if you have staff that spends most of the day doing nothing, then perhaps you need to relook your staffing needs, or get better employees. Even in downtime, employees can use that time to better themselves by learning new skills, or figuring out new ways that IT can help the business.

Conclusion

Of course, you may never get a right number. I’ve gone to a lot of places where the IT department never seems to have enough people, but a deeper look showed a number of inefficiencies, which also tend to worsen as more people join the fray. As they say, too many cooks spoil the broth. It’s important to always appropriately analyse the situation before making a decision.

In summary, choosing the number of IT staff in your business simply because of some arbitrary ratio – industry average or otherwise – is unwise. You should decide the number based on the needs of the business – growth, services, infrastructure and security.

Properly staffing your IT department can go a long way to ensuring business success in the long run.

Original article: Is there a standard ratio of IT Staff to Total Employees?'">How Large an IT Staff Do You Need Is there a standard ratio of IT Staff to Total Employees?

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Their change management process requires management approval, but because the IT manager was on pre-retirement leave, the approval had to go up to the executive level. Justification was shown using the current allocation and historical data on how the network has grown. Still, the executive doesn’t see the need for it, and want further justification for the change.

The executive is not an IT person, but even so, I can’t see why he was blocking such a simple change.

My colleague wanted help convincing the executive.

She asked if there would be any adverse effects to changing the scope size, considering reasons against such a change. I explained that the DHCP server performance will be unaffected, and that network degradation would be expected as the network grew. I said that it would be wise to look at segmenting the network, especially putting the servers within their own network.

But considering that the executive was blocking a simple change, I can’t imagine what would happen if she suggested a major change such as segmentation.

Now this change would be as simple as changing the subnet mask from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.254.0 (even if you don’t understand what I mean, take my word for it that it was simple in this case). I do not know exactly what the executive was thinking as I only spoke to my colleague, but suggested a few things that she may try to convince him to approve the change.

The Approach

• What may happen if you don’t change?

At the moment, the scope capacity is at an urgent level, but not quite critical. The team now has the opportunity to take their time and practice due diligence to properly determine all the changes required, and reduce the chances of any disruption.

However, if you do nothing, the issue may become critical, and considering the number of network devices proliferating the office environment – mobile phones, tablets, and network connected coffee machines – the scope can become quickly depleted. When the issue becomes critical, clients may have difficulty accessing the network and new services cannot be added. The team may now need to seek outside help to expedite resolution, resulting in extra costs incurred.

Doesn’t he feel that it’s better to avoid the risks?

• Will he take responsibility and accountability?

When the issue does become critical, he will be the one who will ultimately be held responsible and accountable, since he was the one who blocked the change.

Wouldn’t he be better off not feeling responsible for the issues?

• Will he prefer the stress when things get critical?

Will he be okay with the stress and frustration that may come when the issue becomes critical.

He can simply remove this source of stress by implementing the change now.

Wouldn’t he feel that this is better course of action?

Why this approach

You will notice that none of these tips talk about the technical nature of the issue, or how DHCP or IP addresses work. The reason is that many decisions are emotional, and considering the details as I have them, a technical discussion will probably not alter his resolve.

Also note that you are trying to get a “Yes” answer to your questions, so that there’s a better chance of getting a yes answer to the approval. Manipulative? Possibly. But I expect that your intentions are for the good. (It’s for the good, right?)

Will these tips work? I don’t know, and there may be more to the story. But for such a minimal change, the concern is unwarranted.

My other advice was less pragmatic – surreptitiously make the change on a evening and no one may be none the wiser. As Grace Hopper once said, “It is better to beg forgiveness, than ask permission.”

Of course, I really don’t recommend anyone does that last bit (please don’t say that I said to do that) and you should always follow your change management procedures, but if you did do it, I’ll understand.

Your Turn

What about you? Have you encountered similar challenges in your workplace? How have you handled it? Do you have any tips that you wish to share? Please add to the discussion using the comment section below. We will all appreciate it.

Original article: 3 tips for convincing your manager that your course of action is correct'">Getting management approval for small changes 3 tips for convincing your manager that your course of action is correct

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

These same reports put lack of user involvement and stakeholder engagement as one of the top obstacles that these IT projects face.

I think that IT departments sometimes forget that they’re there to help end-users do their job; IT is a tool for the business, but users are treated as secondary to the operations. This is particularly so with IT projects. I suppose it’s because it’s easy for IT teams to get absorbed and giddy with new technologies.

Users are consulted, but at the beginning of the project, and only to get the “user requirements”. The IT department then goes off to work to create the next big thing. They return later with the finished product and the users hate it. Tony Collins once said, “Users are likely to reject any system that gives them what they asked for. Better… to understand what users do rather than what they say they do.”

You can increase the chances of success of IT projects by collaborating and getting buy-in from users. Even projects that are on the brink of failure can be recovered and go on to be successful, as the PM Solutions report shows.

Here are some ways to work with your users to increase project success rates.

• Truly engage your users. Don’t just put them in a meeting and tell them what you are doing, but listen to them. Ask about their thoughts; tell them your difficulties and ask for their input on how you may solve them. You might be amazed at what you may get.
• Start training them from the start. If you have an exam in the next couple of months, you don’t wait until the last minute to study (ok, maybe some of you do, but you don’t do that well, and you forget everything by the next day); instead you study and practice a bit before the exam so you can ace it. So why does the IT department expect users to suddenly adopt the new IT system when it goes live with little or no training? Instead start training them once you have a minimum viable product. The feedback you get would also be very valuable.
• Be consistent. Have you ever gone on a diet and achieved your target weight? If you’re like most people, a few months later you’ve gained it all back, or at least a few pounds (sometimes a few more than when you started). People have a tendency to go back to the status quo if you have not put systems in place to keep the change effective. Keep on top of the users, getting their feedback, and incorporating it into continuous improvement.

Original article: Your users hold the key!'">Improve the Success Rates of your IT Projects with these Simple Ideas Your users hold the key!

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Both of those articles refer to the Gartner Hype Cycle (see image below), and more specifically to the ‘Trough of Disillusionment’, where “Interest wanes, as the technology fails to deliver on inflated expectations and promises”. And there is evidence that big data has indeed followed Gartner’s model, and is probably approaching the trough.

Now, a new Gartner report entitled “Big Data Adoption in 2013 Shows Substance Behind the Hype” says that 64% of organizations polled have invested or plan to invest in Big Data within the next two years. This is up from 58% last year.

Interestingly, 56% of those polled gave “Determining how to get value from big data” as one of their top three big data challenges. This says to me that businesses want big data, they just don’t know what to do with it.

I still consider big data to be a solution in search of a problem. Adopters have implemented big data analytics hoping for insights, but it’s hard to find something when you don’t know what you’re looking for. The thing is that right now, it’s hard to say what kind of insights big data can bring, and further, what returns would those insights bring. As more products come into the space to drive the prices down, it may then become feasible.

Big data may have real value for Geospatial purposes, or for analyzing large quantities of open data for research or government. But in business, I’m sceptical of its advantages. Business should do a proper ROI before making any investments and not follow the hype.

If indeed big data is following Gartner’s Hype Cycle, then we are already sliding into the trough of disillusionment: we have activity beyond early adopters, and negative press. Next is supposed to come some failures, so look out for that.

Original article: Yes, it probably is.'">Is Big Data being over-hyped? Yes, it probably is.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

What many of these IT leaders do wrong is to focus on cost-cutting rather than focus on ways of growing the business. The CEO and other executives are interested in growth and will be more that willing to hear ideas on how IT can help them achieve that goal.

Here are some ideas on how you can help grow the business and, at the same time, bring transform the business.

• Seek to grow revenue, not cut costs. Think about how additional revenue can come into the business using IT. Can you help marketing better analyze sales data to improve their efforts? Can adding automated workflows reduce turnaround times from sale to delivery?
• Find ways to do more with what you have and not necessarily reducing what you already have. How can you optimize space used? How about increasing the efficiency of the sales team? Using chain management software, one company was able to increase the output of their plant by optimizing orders of raw materials to better utilize the existing storage space.
• Introduce e-collaboration throughout the company. Studies have shown that collaboration with both direct and indirect ties improves productivity and innovation in firms. Some companies already have such infrastructure in place, such as Microsoft SharePoint, but fail to utilise the software to its maximum potential, settling for a nice intranet web site rather than a real collaborative platform for Wikis, forums and information sharing.
• Increase value to other decision-makers by making data available in a more friendly way. Instead of having reports generated in usual spreadsheets, consider using visuals instead of tables for example, or automate trending to see the ups and downs. Data in a more visualised display is always more easily understood, which explains the popularity with infographics.

This is list is not exhaustive, but it’s just to get you started.

You won’t find success overnight, but formulate a strategy with one goal, perhaps two, and execute the relevant tasks to reach that goal. You will find that IT would be much more valued than before.

Original article: ... and add greater value to the business'">4 Ideas that IT Leaders can use to bring Transformational Change ... and add greater value to the business

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

I reviewed my program and implemented some new processes to help me, and by the end of March (within three months) I lost the final 20 lbs that I needed, and currently maintaining that weight.

This experience has taught me a few things that can be used by businesses to improve and help them reach their goals. Here are some of the lessons I learned.

1. Measuring progress is critical.

You can decide that you are going to lose weight by eating less and exercising more, but by how much of each do you mean? You need to note how many calories you intake by eating and expend by exercise, otherwise you are just making wild guesses and will not go far. Yes, you might lose weight, but not nearly as much as if you were accounting for those calories.

The same with business; if you decide on making certain changes, ensure that you determine how much you are going to change it by and then measure those changes as you go along.

2. What you measure is important.

Most people trying to lose weight look at only one measurement: how much weight they lose. The problem with that is that you cannot directly control your weight loss. You cannot will yourself to lose 10lbs. But you can control other things that your weight depends on – namely how many calories you eat and how much you burn by exercise. By looking primarily at those figures, you will start to see results. You will still look at your weight, but only as a secondary measure to determine if you are on the right track.

It is the same with business. You cannot will more profits, but you can control things like how much you spend on services or other expenses, and how many customers you speak to on a daily basis. By keeping track of those activities that you can directly control, you will have the type of profits you want.

3. The right activities matter.

When I first tried to lose weight I was doing a lot of cardio exercises and not merely eating as well as I should have. What I later learned is that I needed to improve my diet and include more weight training exercises and less cardio. With that my weight loss was far more dramatic.

What activities are your business following that may be outdated or just plain wrong? Read up on new and emerging business management research. Just like health, new findings may render the ways you thought you should follow as unbeneficial.

4. Be consistent.

We are hardwired for instant gratification, and we would often keep changing tactics when we don’t see results soon enough. I was doing a little of this, and when I didn’t get results I did a little of that. Exercised one week, dieted the next, then exercised two weeks later. As expected, I didn’t lose much during that time. Then I set a consistent routine of diet and exercise, which had a significant impact.

In your business, you can’t try one thing, then another and another without any type of structure and expect to see the results you want. Do your research, choose your method, give it serious effort and after some time determine if it’s been working or whether you need to improve it or change it altogether.

5. Determine your motivation.

Just wanting something is not enough! You must have a very good reason for wanting something, which resonates to cause real change. I wanted to lose weight, but it was not until I had a real reason that I got serious and lost most of my weight.

What is your reason for wanting to improve and grow your business? You might be motivated, but do you employees feel the same? You must have a reason that resonates with them as well; a rallying cry that everyone can agree with and want just as badly. Find that out and you will be unstoppable.

6. Sometimes you need help.

I got a lot of help in order to lose weight. I did research on the internet, read books, joined online forums and, one that really helped me, a mobile app for my phone. That app helped me keep track of my meals, exercise and weight and also gave me lots of excellent tips.

What help does your business need? Do you need information, support or tools? Ensure that you get the help you need to achieve the goals you want.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint!

There is a saying that weight loss is a marathon and not a sprint, which is to say, that it’s really a slow and steady effort to get where you’re going, otherwise you can burn out and never reach there. I understand that many businesses have shareholders and investors to report to, but you must also decide if you want a company that will last. While I know that nothing is guaranteed in business, continuous improvement is a proven way to keep a business going and growing.

May your hard work pay off, whether it’s in business or losing weight.

Original article: and you should learn them too!'">6 Business lessons that I learned from losing weight and you should learn them too!

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

The insurance industry is based on risk and a person purchasing insurance does so based on all of the possible costs that may be incurred based on the probability of the risk occurring. So someone may spend the $50 to buy some accident insurance that has a probability of 1 in 100 happening that can may incur a cost of $1000.

Now securing IT is also based around the cost that may be incurred based on risk of an incident occurring. So for example if I have a piece of equipment that costs $500 that holds data that is worth $500, then I may spend $50 to secure that $1000 worth of equipment and data from a risk that has a 1 in 100 chance of happening.

Do you notice any similarities? Of course!

I may have oversimplified a few things, but the concept is basically the same.

The only thing to consider is that in insurance, they only insure you against the risk of something happening; IT security on the other hand puts mechanisms in place to minimize the risk of something happening.

With insurance you must take appropriate steps to prevent what to avoid it particular accident from happening, while with IT security, you’re spending money to reduce the risk of a particular threat happening.

The thing with IT security, as with insurance, is that you may never eliminate a risk. You may spend thousands and millions of dollars and still a risk may remain. But if you look at the similarities of IT security and insurance it doesn’t stop there.

Another way in which they are very similar is the way that they are sold. Have you ever been sold insurance before? I have, and I personally hate insurance agents! Insurance agents sell and fear uncertainty and doubt – FUD. They sell with statements such as, “You must think about your family,” or, “What would happen if you are sick or an accident happens and you are unable to work; how are you going to support them?”
They play on fears and appeal to your darkest emotions.

IT security vendors play a similar game. They also use FUD to put buyers in an uneasy and uncomfortable position where they believe that their risk is much greater than they may perceive it to be. This is one of the reasons that I hate sales pitches from IT security vendors.

Now don’t get me wrong, I believe that IT security devices are an important part of protecting an enterprise environment. But what I also believe is that a lot of people overestimate what is required to protect their environment and, in some instances, underestimate what they should be protecting.

IT Security is not as simple as just throwing technology in there and thinking that you are protected.

IT Security involves a full holistic approach with technology, your people and executive management to bring a certain level of awareness and behaviour that will ensure a secure environment. However many businesses don’t look at the people aspect and use too much technology for their IT security needs, often based on the advice of the same IT security vendors.

Take my advice and take everything that IT Security vendors say with a tablespoonful of salt.

I understand that having a lot of IT Security systems in place helps you feel comfortable and secure. But just as you can have too much insurance, you can have too much IT Security systems.

And too much IT Security systems can have the opposite effect of what you are trying to achieve. More on that point in another article.

Original article: Two sides of the same coin'">IT Security and Insurance Two sides of the same coin

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This incident reminded me of something similar that I witnessed during the Christmas season when I was shopping for some presents for my children in a toy store. While browsing I overheard a customer asking two sales clerks to see an item on one of the higher shelves. One of the clerks told the customer, “I’m not seeing any of the fellas around. Check the other aisle to see if you see any of the boys and ask them to get it for you.” The customer then said, “You want me to find the boy?” and the clerk said yes. The customer said thanks and promptly left the store. The sales clerks started the laugh and one said, “Well that’s her loss!”

The above two examples show a failure of where a small step wouldn’t have caused major satisfaction, but not taking that step caused major dissatisfaction. In fact in the second example the store lost a possible sale, and worst, the clerks thought that it was the customer who lost. No! It was the store that lost, and perhaps your jobs might be next.

We might look at these examples and relate to it, but how many times within our own businesses we are guilty of these same missteps? We don’t follow up with the customer. We don’t deliver when we say we will deliver. We don’t pass a simple message on to someone when asked to. Even when providing service to our own co-workers.

We must all be cognizant that we are in the business of providing service and must do so to the best and greatest of our ability. And sometimes doing the best and greatest is simply to take that one step that others wouldn’t.

Original article: Bad service has more to do with what you don't do.'">A Culture of Service Bad service has more to do with what you don't do.

©2025 Interxect Services Limited. All Rights Reserved.