Kyle read Robin Sharp's article on software development role fragmentation, and is now wondering the same things I was a few months ago.

While I don't agree with many of Robin Sharp's absurd blanket statements ("Most IT directors are senile"), I find myself agreeing with much of his premise.

"At one client I got an administrator to change my roaming profile as they had somehow created two of them. Can you guess what happened? Yep, they deleted my source code!"

Yup, happened to me, except that it was my e-mail, not my source.

"A great deal of the current inefficiency in software development comes from senior IT managers who are persuaded by administrators to impose unnecessary policies on developers. The administrators have been given too much power, and often take up adversarial positions against the development managers. The current operating mode of most organisations is entirely negative. Administrators now utilise development hurdles (such as database installations) to enforce policies."

This rings true for many corporate software development organizations, and I don't understand why. It seems to be a byproduct of department size and how the department is organized, as smaller groups don't see these issues as often.

I have to agree very strongly with Mr. Sharp when he says: "... this particular administrator knew that nothing bad would happen to him as a result of his gross ineptitude, therefore he didn't give a damn." Yes, indeed. Accountability is key. Yet it is so often lacking up and down the chain of responsibility.

A great deal of this organizational ineptitude is leading the push to outsource IT functions. When department leaders suggest that a team of developers unfamiliar with the business, 5000 miles away, can do the job better than those sitting in the next room, perhaps corporate management will start to realize where the real problem lies.