Broadcast vs. IT

[richard.vanderveen]

I've been around long enough to this is sort of a 'universal pain in the butt', but I'm just curious if some of you guys have solved this:

The station I work for has been bought by a bigger company (printed media) some years ago. That company has its own IT departement. As you would expect these guys want to be in full control of all they consider IT. That means networks are build according to THEIR needs, servers are installed with configurations that meet THEIR needs. Talking about having our own 'territory' build to OUR needs is out of the question. This is really becoming a pain in the ass, because WE get confronted with the issues. The next step they'd like to take is having full control of all IT driven solutions. That includes for example the automation.

How do you guys handle this?

 

[gtomas]

I've been around long enough to this is sort of a 'universal pain in the butt', but I'm just curious if some of you guys have solved this:

As with any 'universal pain in the butt', the first step is to - sit down and talk!

Get the owner/GM/whoever is in charge, the IT department manager and sit with them and explain your side of the problem, the peculiarities of radio operation, why you want/need your IT autonomy. Listen their concerns and address them. Give suggestions on how you think the issues could be resolved. If needed, schedule another meeting to come up with suggestions.

The IT manager is probably worried about stuff like security, viruses, global network configuration (IP addresses, domains, VPNs), not that much what you run on your PC and how you use it. However, if the IT manager is a control freak (any many are) he will probably want your passwords, possibly real-time desktop monitoring, etc. If you think about it, there's really no reason not to give those to him. After all, you're not doing aynthing you shouldn't, are you?

If there is a co-operative atmosphere in the meeting (and you should be the first to try and set the scene that way), there is high probability of coming to agreement that will satisfy their concerns, while giving you most of what you want. The key to any long-term, satisfying co-operation is to work on mutual interests... In your case, a better radio station with smoother operation.

Good luck!


Regards,
Goran Tomas

 

[richard.vanderveen]

thank you Goran, for your sound advice. But... we've already been there (and offcourse still are). The problem is that we are asked to be receiptive to their arguments (and we are, I have some IT background), but they show no understanding whatsoever for our concerns and needs.

Nice example: for setting up the network for the automation (Dalet) the supplier advised us to use 3Com switches of a certain type. This was well argumented, but IT refused because they were used to their HP switches and another brand/model was 'undesirable' for management purposes. So, we have to deal with the HP's now and do have the predicted troubles. IT says it's not the switches, the supplier claims it is, and ofcourse we are in the middle. A year later IT is switching to virtual servers and the infrastructure is filled with... 3com switches. When asked why the answer was: "because the supplier advised us to...".

 

[TomT]

Well...

Since the IT guys want to control everything, the next time the automation dies on a weekend, tell the air folks to call IT....

 

[richard.vanderveen]

Well... Since the IT guys want to control everything, the next time the automation dies on a weekend, tell the air folks to call IT....

I'm afraid that's indeed the attitude we're going to end up with...
It doesn't help the station though :-\

 

[SirRoxalot]

One possible solution is to run the automation on a completely separate IP network. Plug into your own switches, and put a router between your network and the "company" network. If you MUST have Internet access, restrict it to servers alone so they can update programs, antivirus, antispyware, etc.

The only computers in the studio that have Internet access should be completely separate from both the corporate and automation networks. If you lock down workstations so hard that you protect jocks from "stupid", you lose a lot of capability. A better answer is to image the studio systems, do your best to protect them, then reimage them if somebody does something to compromise that system. Trust me, jocks will learn to back up favorites and other important data after the first reimage.

Most corporate IT guys are anal, and they get worse with time. In a corporate environment, where relatively few applications are required, locking down workstations is a common practice. If you separate your studios from the corporate network, you absolve them of responsibility. That's something that corporate IT guys usually respond positively to.

 

[techie2]

I have a postulate that goes something like this:

"The job of the IT Department is to keep you from doing your job in an efficient manner."

Most of those types have no idea how to make things work in a broadcast studio. I dealt with this sort of issue at a college station once. Good luck! :

 

[landtuna]

In the interest of full disclosure let me first say I am a 30+ year veteran of the IT wars but have never worked in a radio or TV studio.

That said I can almost assure you the IT department has been directed at a very senior level to assume control (including design, implementation and operation) of all related communication networks with the primary goal of reduced costs and eliminating redundancy. Non-IT management may see dueling networks as redundant and expensive. It will be your job to make them understand why they aren't.

With the proliferation of server farms and explosion of all manner of software an uncontrolled facility can quickly descend into chaos and huge support costs. It wasn't like this in the old mainframe days and IT management (or more specifically, corporate non-IT management) don't usually have a great understanding of issues outside their normal corporate marching orders.

IMHO the first thing that should be done is meeting with the policy setters which probably means upper level IT and corporate management. Include some bean counters and pre-staff them with enough financial information that they are able to support any "separate but equal" networking/software proposal. You need to describe, preferably in ordinary business terms, how you can operate a network designed to your needs (and which may be different than the corporate data network) without a significant increase in complexity and/or support costs. Most important, you need to convince upper management this will allow your side of the business to operate more efficiently and you will not be impacting the corporate network(s). If the shouting gets heavy from the IT side you should be prepared to denote, again in ordinary business terms, how IT is not meeting your needs and costing the organization money but do not raise political issues - stick to the economic side of the argument.

Most IT managers are computer techies by nature and not given to playing the "bigger empire" game. I've been in happy management where the IT boss runs the corporate networks and data centers and I've been in poor management where the corporate bosses have dumped all manner of "techie" responsibilities (such as the mail room, telephone system and even some facility stuff) on the poor IT guy. Clearly, if your IT person is overworked trying to manage these other disparate responsibilities he/she may be eager to have you take over a piece of the pie but you have to orchestrate it as a financial decision and not political.

If your IT boss is an empire builder and is in good standing with his/her corporate bosses you are probably screwed. But if the true issue is money (or more specifically cost avoidance), and you have a good program on how to do more by spending less you should have an interested audience.

Good luck.

 

[Studio1]

I was explaining to one of my suppliers yesterday that when I started in radio in 1984, you trained as a radio tech, and learnt how to use computers (in later years).
Now you train in IT and learn how to install radios.
I think IT has its place in broadcasting, but it does not rule the domain.

A radio station is an audio and RF environment, not a damn ISP.

As a contractor to various stations, I come in and do my thing - and they generally have an IT guy that services their computer needs.
I try to stay well clear of any IT stuff. I 'tolerate' computers where I need to, and the IT guy deals with the rest.
If there is something specific (like an automation server) then I will offer advice, and if they choose to ignore it, then they reap the consequences - and yes, this has meant stations falling over and CEOs screaming down telephones. Don't say I didn't warn them.

I have come close to refusing to work for a particular station because they wouldn't listen to my advice - but at the end of the day they
gave in and realised that the radio man with 25 years experience probably knew a thing or two.

My suggestion would be to draw a line in the sand as far as your input goes with the station and if they choose to ignore or want to
do things a different way, let them. They will learn in the long run. As someone else said, if they want to run it as an IT project, let the
IT gurus sort it out when it goes toes-up.

This is the hard truth of radio.

 

[LA_Guy]

As someone who works with IT every day and also deals with broadcast engineers (I do tech support for Barix) every day, I have some observations.

First off, most 'pure' IT departments don't have a clue about how any aspect of a radio or TV station works. They make assumptions-mostly poor ones-about how it works.

Second, the IT knowlege of broadcast engineers runs the gamut from being extensive to knowing nothing at all-and I see both extremes every day! Many engineers need to take an IT course-or at least read up on how a router and firewall works. Less then a quarter I encounter understand what port forwarding is and how it works.

Owners are even worse-and usually add cheap to the equation. One radio station was off the air for almost 5 weeks-until the owner finally took my advice and paid an IT guy 500 dollars to provide, install and configure two Linksys routers for him. It took the IT guy THIRTY MINUTES to get everything running! Five weeks off the air because you can't spend a few hundred dollars!

As time goes on, more and more of our time is going to be spent doing IT/IP networking. If you don't have the training and/or experience, the time to get it is NOW!!!

 

[K4WRF]

On tactic that finally worked for me was to involve them in a relatively non-destructive way and let them just begin to learn what all is involved and the responsibilities therein. This process helped build relationships and respect for what all was involved. At the same time, show interest in what their challenges are, and solutions. They learn, you learn and so on. After a short time, they pretty much left me alone. This was a VERY large IT support operation that involved many different applications including massive Point-Of-Purchase cash-flow applications.

Just one consideration in many good ones.

Good luck.
w/

 

[richard.vanderveen]

On tactic that finally worked for me was to involve them in a relatively non-destructive way and let them just begin to learn what all is involved and the responsibilities therein. This process helped build relationships and respect for what all was involved. At the same time, show interest in what their challenges are, and solutions. They learn, you learn and so on.

This is what I am going to aim for, but I'm afraid this is going to end in a battle that ends with total control for one of the two departements.
Probably IT :-( When it comes to convincing the man upstairs it is hard to beat a zillion pages of ITIL based theory...

 

[The F Mister]

ITIL should only be applied where it add's to success of the whole process. Not just for the sake of it.

 

[richard.vanderveen]

ITIL should only be applied where it add's to success of the whole process. Not just for the sake of it.

Exactly. Unfortunately enough ITIL sometimes becomes the goal instead of the tool.

 

[radiosaur]

Magnanimously let them have it. After a few moths of off-hours calls and realizing they have no clue how to run a broadcast enviroment, you'll get it back. You'll have to clean it up then, but you'll get it back and nothing mreo will be said.

If you don' t get it back, you were going to be laid off eventually anyway.

 

[foursider]

And the owners and managers of stations wonder why so many engineers are finding better things to do. I say give the morons what they want. I know it's painful to watch a station you have put so much time, sweat and tears into go down. But, sometime you just have to stick up for your principles. I just quit a DOE job with a six-station group because the corporate management hired an IT "professional", then placed the engineering department under him. Within a year he had the most dysfunctional department I have ever seen in my 40+ years in broadcasting. I finally got my belly full of the crap and left. My health and sanity are worth what I left behind.