Propotion of IT staff to general staff

[srebbe64]

My company employs about 80 people, two of which are in IT, and my middle managers are saying we need a third person. Personally, I'd have thought that two full time IT guys should be able to cope in a company of this size.

I know it's a generalisation, but what (if any) is peoples' perceived wisdom of IT staff (who are an overhead) proportion to the size of the company?

[wiggy001]

srebbe64 said:

...(who are an overhead)...

No we're not

Anyway, where I am we have around 80 IT staff in a company of 2200ish employees...

[srebbe64]

wiggy001 said:

srebbe64 said: ...(who are an overhead)... No we're not Anyway, where I am we have around 80 IT staff in a company of 2200ish employees...

1/28 - interesting! But you're still an overhead

[Plotloss]

Business owners that consider IT to be anything other than a strategic investment are already planning their retirements.

75 in a company of 2000
2000 in a company of 30000
1 in a company of 26

It varies.

It also rather depends on what you expect of them. If its just desktop support and your buying policy is fairly modern and they arent always fixing crap machines then two should just do it but you've got no slack there.

[Liszt]

Take a look at how many Pcs, servers, telephones, monitors, Leased lines, ADSL, ISDN lines, fax machine, projectors, printers, switches, hubs, routers, UPSs, PDAs, Blackberrys etc.

Now imagine what the cost would be if half stopped working.


All about risk isn't it. But then you'd know about that

[srebbe64]

Plotloss said:

Business owners that consider IT to be anything other than a strategic investment are already planning their retirements. 75 in a company of 2000 2000 in a company of 30000 1 in a company of 26 It varies. It also rather depends on what you expect of them. If its just desktop support and your buying policy is fairly modern and they arent always fixing crap machines then two should just do it but you've got no slack there.

Okay, so that's:

27/1
15/1
26/1

I guess I may have to take the plunge!

[srebbe64]

Liszt said:

Take a look at how many Pcs, servers, telephones, monitors, Leased lines, ADSL, ISDN lines, fax machine, projectors, printers, switches, hubs, routers, UPSs, PDAs, Blackberrys etc. Now imagine what the cost would be if half stopped working. All about risk isn't it. But then you'd know about that

Over the years I've learned to box smart, not hard. It's the easiest thing in the world to agree to increase costs to prevent this or that. However, making a profit is simple - ensure that your income is greater than your outgoings. To make a big profit is not much harder, one has to ensure that the income is far greater than the outgoings. IT support are an overhead you pay regardless of how many sales you've got. As such, my natural reaction is to restrict IT expenditure unless about necessary. I'm interested in one thing only - making a decent profit and protecting that margin. If taking on another IT person is the right thing to do then I'll do it!

[Muncher]

It depends entirely on what you're expecting those staff to do.

One Law firm I spent time with recently had 6 IT staff for about 100 staff on site, but that was because they had absolutely superb systems which no doubt saved the firm shed loads of cash.

[dilbert]

You may call them an overhead Srebbe, and I can understand your thinking, but I'd bet that you don't call them an overhead when your system doesn't work!



The thing about It staff is that one good one is worth two normal people, plus the guy himself so three.

One bad one is worth minus six normal people, plus himself, so minus five.

The more you have the more difficult it is to get good ones.

I have a theory that corporate IT systems are limited in size, in much the same way as corporations are.

If you're lucky enough to own a company the size of Microsoft, then your best bet to attain real efficiency is to break it up into a number of smaller entities.

It may not be the best bet in terms of global competition, i.e. power and resilience, but in terms of entering new markets and growth, it's the only way.

I'm probably wrong, and that's why I'll never actually find out if I'm right!

[srebbe64]

Changing the subject, what is it about IT staff that make them obsessive about keeping thousands of empty boxes? every time I've employed one, within a few weeks there's empty cardboard boxes all over their office.

[srebbe64]

dilbert said:

You may call them an overhead Srebbe, and I can understand your thinking, but I'd bet that you don't call them an overhead when your system doesn't work!

You're difinitely an overhead Dilbert because you're obviously surfing the net when you should be working.

[dilbert]

srebbe64 said:

dilbert said: You may call them an overhead Srebbe, and I can understand your thinking, but I'd bet that you don't call them an overhead when your system doesn't work! You're difinitely an overhead Dilbert because you're obviously surfing the net when you should be working.

Not that I ever worked in IT, I'm a microelectronics engineer, but I must have been an overhead, 'cos I'm unemployed! But thanks for the dole money anyhow.

The reason they hoard boxes, is because as all good IT people know, IT systems run on Hamster power. A happy hamster is a happy company! What do hamsters like more than cardboard homes!



>> Edited by dilbert on Monday 17th October 17:10

[victormeldrew]

Plotloss said:

Business owners that consider IT to be anything other than a strategic investment are already planning their retirements.

Agreed, 100%. Outsourcing the entire IT dept is a recipe for rapid business collapse too. Very few businesses can hope to compete without effective IT.

Yes, 2 in 100 might be ok, but those two had better be good.

[bjwoods]

It really depends what they are doing??

If they are supporting implementing applications/software that adds value to the business. OR helps generate new business, develop product faster. They are part of your strategy/cost

After all EVERYTHING could be considered a cost, and thats why 'some' business screw up because 'some finance' directors try to bring ALL the costs down, insteads of knowing the ones that add value (And are worth it), vs the ones you can minimise.

B

[srebbe64]

bjwoods said:

After all EVERYTHING could be considered a cost, and thats why 'some' business screw up because 'some finance' directors try to bring ALL the costs down, insteads of knowing the ones that add value (And are worth it), vs the ones you can minimise. B

Which is why I'd never let an FD run a business. The first thing they often do is cut back on sales & marketing - major own goal.

[roadsweeper]

Plotloss said:

Business owners that consider IT to be anything other than a strategic investment are already planning their retirements.

victormeldrew said:

Agreed, 100%. Outsourcing the entire IT dept is a recipe for rapid business collapse too. Very few businesses can hope to compete without effective IT.

I agree entirely. The thing is, and I suspect srebbe64 is guilty of this very thing, that people forget what IT actually means. They think it means computers and Microsoft Office and printers and floppy disks. It doesn't, it means Information Technology.

It's worth taking a moment to think about that familiar phrase really means because as a term Information Technology has been bandied about so much that I feel it has lost it's meaning. There are very few businesses around in the current competitive climate who can afford not to have good Information Technology - we live in the Information Age for God's sake!

Anyone who sees IT as an overhead is severely limiting the horizons of their business because they are limiting their control of, access to and ability to analyse information. Old-fashioned managers tend to look only at traditional information, such as annual gross profit, salaries, etc., all of which are critical to any business. However, in my opinion, those who will be most successful use technology to get more information about their business that basic financial packages don't give you. For example:

- Customer demographics
- Customer buying behaviour
- Lead conversion percentages
- Aspects of service most requiring improvement based on customer feedback
- Highest performing employees

I'm sure other people can think of literally dozens of other important things IT can help you learn about your business. More importantly, it's quite likely (based purely on the law of averages) that a good IT consultant could walk into your business and through a combination of business process analysis and automation through IT, save you a packet...

Concepts such as Customer Relationship Management (CRM), Business Intelligence (BI) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) all exist to make IT valuable to the bottom line of a business.

My company's tag line really summaries my feelings quite nicely - "IT as an investment, not an expense."

[jimothy]

wiggy001 said:

srebbe64 said: ...(who are an overhead)... No we're not

Too right. The guys on the trading desk at the last bank I worked for regarded us IT guys as a cost, but without us they'd have no systems to use to make money. They invested in getting some people, and in return we made their lives easier so profits went up. Those profits are half due to teh traders and half due to the IT team.

[wiggy001]

I was going to write a long speech about why IT should not be cosidered an overhead, but I knew that a short post with the correct smilie would lead you guys to write something fitting and far more eloquent that I could have.

I was not disappointed!

If you're purely talking of supporting existing MS Office based systems, then a couple of people could well be fine. If you want to INCREASE your long-term profits by developing your core systems, I'd start investing yesterday...

Coming from an ERP developer, that's hardly a suprising statement, is it?

[srebbe64]

wiggy001 said:

I was going to write a long speech about why IT should not be cosidered an overhead, but I knew that a short post with the correct smilie would lead you guys to write something fitting and far more eloquent that I could have. I was not disappointed! If you're purely talking of supporting existing MS Office based systems, then a couple of people could well be fine. If you want to INCREASE your long-term profits by developing your core systems, I'd start investing yesterday... Coming from an ERP developer, that's hardly a suprising statement, is it?

The reason that IT can be considered an overhead is because half of them are surfing the web all day!

[Plotloss]

You appear to make making the mistake of many business owners.

Thats not surfing, thats research.

Very important to stay on the leading edge of technology you see, so we can maximise your investment in technology.