"Of course, it all went to shit. New employees would go a week before they had machines, phones, passwords, and ACLs. Printers ran out of paper, projectors ran out of lightbulbs, servers ran out of storage, networks got misconfigured, and so forth. The total time lost and wasted across the whole company was most certainly greater than the savings of laying off the expensive and skilled IT staff."
The guy might be a bit biased but it's completely clear from his article that even though he might not have exact numbers the company was much better off(not only in terms of total profit) with the old IT department.
Are you a manager?
All we know from the article is that IT was worse off. But we have no idea how the company as a whole is doing.
Maybe you aren't aware, but most companies consist of more than the IT dept.
You're taking this awfully personally, I'll ask again do you do in some sort of managerial position? Do you have some personal experience with this sort of thing?
Ok.. tell me about those employees. How much do they get paid? Minimum wage? What do they do? Do they even require a desk?
A week to setup a desk that the employee doesn't even need because they are required to travel constantly is not a problem.
You're taking this awfully personally
I'm not taking any of this personally. You're just sensitive because someone is suggesting that an IT dept might have required cuts.
Geez.. for people who are so scientifically-minded, you sure do seem eager to take everything in the article on faith.
The employees were expensive software developers, electrical engineers, RF signal electrical engineers, and microelectronics design engineers. There probably was one person making minwage. She was a very sweet developmentally disabled girl who delivered the mail to our desks.
In fact, since the odds of this exact management team starting a new company in exactly the same industry with exactly the same business model are close to zero, I think we can agree that it would be impossible to learn anything from this story even if we DID know all the details.
Sure.
It's not a formal proof. It's a narrative of a general pattern that we might want to learn from. If we can learn from narratives that are completely false - raganwald's excellent posts come to mind - then surely we can learn from narratives that are not scientifically rigorous.
Second, maybe IT was running so smoothly previously because it was bloated, and was a huge drain on company resources. Maybe it was running smoothly because a bad manager refused to put a limit on anything, leading to a division whos costs were completely out of control.
We have no idea, because there are no details in the article about the company, or about the IT spending before OR after the cuts.