Do IT jobs inside non IT companies make sense outside the infra-support field?

Question

I am currently working for a non-software-development company, and I often see my manager having to explain the existence of an IT R&D Department (outside infra support) to upper management.

We have the IT infra support team, and we in IT R&D (Research & Development) know that the company needs us to build software here and there, provide the extra edge to the usual functioning of the company:

Build software that can handle unmarketable needs, something they wouldn't be able to buy easily, but actually drive some performance enhancements throughout the business, like:

"we need a tool that automates xyz".

Upper management is really not so sure of needing us, they think of outsourcing all the time, meaning our work is usually invisible to them, even though we end up doing the real development of the tools they thought they outsourced...

My current IT manager tends to win these arguments, but specially after reading this great answer from Simucal to a similar question: Does outsourcing make you worry?

It seems the answer (I would think of) could be: Not if you are working for a Software Company.

I know this is maybe too pessimistic (and thats why I am asking the community your view), but:

Is it worth it career wise, to stay in a business where the main product isn't the software you are building?

Should we always aim to land a job in a software development company?

Answer 1

I think it's good to work outside of pure software development for some time. I used to have a cartoon, of a kid in the Principal's office looking angry. The caption was "It's not enough to be brilliant, Gerald. You have to be brilliant at something."

Software's like that. It's not enough to be a brilliant programmer; you have to be brilliant at programming something people want. Exposure to the world out of software development gives you a chance to learn about something.

Answer 2

I fought this battle in a large engineering company for over a year. My boss and I saw a need for software that nobody else wrote to give us a leg up in the industry and win some huge projects. Management, however, didn't want anything to do with software, even with some of the great little projects we had done in the mean time that saved us tons of money on projects, and even won us a few big projects. In the end, I grew tired of fighting the battle with management and now I work at a small software firm in a completely unrelated field.

Answer 3

My thinking has always been that when you work for a company which makes its revenue selling software, then your output is considered an asset or profit on the balance sheet. However, when you're working on software in a company whose profits come from something other than the sale of software you're viewed only as a cost, and your output only shows up as cost savings on another group's expenditures line, not as profit. A group that only shows up as a negative on the balance sheet will always be fighting for its own survival.

Answer 4

There are two question in your question:

1. Whether there is a legitimate case for building software inside a non-IT company.
2. Whether the answer to #1 applies equally (or is recognized equally) by the management of all such companies.

I suggest that the answer to #1 is "Sometimes." I've read descriptions of many companies whose core business is not the building of software, but which still achieve a strategic edge from proprietary information technology in a variety of ways (customer integration, customer support, improved planning, operational support, etc.) I even recall an article about a clothing retailer that used constant flow of information from stores back to production to achieve "just in time" cycles that minimized inventory and cut response time to shifts in buying patterns. However, there are also cases where such arguments don't apply.

Even so, the answer to #2 trumps #1. If your management doesn't believe that anything beyond off-the-shelf information systems has ROI justification, then they won't invest in it. Even if the competitor down the street believes (and invests) otherwise.

Answer 5

Sure it can be worth it career wise to stay in a business where the main product isn't the software I build. Although where I work does sell technology hardware and software, within IT there are still a few big projects like ERP, CRM, CMS, as well as lots of little projects that would be nice to get done as there is a good reason for updating some business processes. There is also a certain amount of domain knowledge within a company in terms of how they use ERP or CRM that will likely always require a team to keep putting in new things or replacing legacy parts to keep things running.

I have worked for a couple of companies that sold software and didn't really see that big of a difference to some extent, though it may be worth noting that one was for an Application Service Provider so that the software given to Value Added Resellers was our product. In my other case, the company was a dot-com that may have been ahead of its time in terms of being a DRM company that experimented with sheet music and thought that would let them get their foot in the door for audio.

While I could always worry about losing my job due to outsourcing, I find that there are enough similar positions that I probably could move to if I couldn't find a spot within the IT arm of a company.