Should IT Shops Let Users Manage Their Own PCs?
It's a very Web 2.0 concept. And there is some merit to it. Back in the day when workstation lock-downs were getting common in workplace settings (ZENworks was good for that), there was a debate about some of this. At my old job one thing we wanted to lock down was the wall-paper. That one thing would help reinforce the idea that this was a WORK Pc, not a home PC. The counter argument to this is that such user environment things are mostly harmless, so permitting them allows the lock-down to be less intrusive on the user.
This is another step in that direction. Workplaces have PC configuration standards for a variety of good reasons. You want all machines plugged into your network to not be festering hives of scum and malware, and these sorts of standards can prevent that. On the other end of the scale, high end users know the tools of their field better than your general IT desktop support person does and in theory can do more with the tools they know versus the tools forced upon them.
On the control end of the spectrum, you keep IT costs down by standardizing the configs in your enterprise. This keeps the Total Cost of Ownership down, a big thing for companies with the right internal costing controls (*nudge nudge*). One tech can support many more end users that way, since the range of things they support is kept to a minimum.
On the freedom end of the spectrum, the end user gets exactly the tools they want to do their job. They're happier that way. And since they support themselves, IT costs are controlled. One tech can support many more end users that way, since the bits they're supporting are significantly reduced.
The 'freedom' end of things runs smack into some standard industry practices, such as volume licensing and big-buy discounts. Dell, for instance, sells PCs cheaper if you buy them by the gross rather than in singles as users are onboarded. Specialized packages like AutoCAD also come cheaper if you buy them in packs of 10 rather than one at a time. Licenses all too often these days are timed and enforced, so you could have end users forgetting to renew the license on their Scrivener install and being non-productive for a few days while purchasing gets them a renewed license. The big 'endpoint management suites', what they seem to be calling the AntiVirus/Firewall package these days, all assume enterprise central control.
On the other hand, users liked being treated like reasoning, intelligent people who are capable of making choices about their work environment. This makes for happier workers.
Also working in this favor is the trend to webify everything in the workplace. The days when you have a whonking big file-server to store all the company data on are slowly going away, and being replaced with things like SharePoint (which can get just as big, don't get me wrong). The fights we've had in the past about how to roll out a new Novell Client to all our desktops would be moot in such an environment as the 'client' is called 'Firefox' (or Gnome, or Office 2007).
On the downside of the 'freedom' end of things is piracy. Tools like Zen Asset Management are there to make sure that the software in use is actually legal. In this freedom environment there is the significantly increased probability of someone bringing their 'backup' copy of something from home to install on their work machine and creating legal liability for the company if they get audited.
Another downside is interoperability problems. The Microsoft Office users create document-macros that the WordPerfect Office users can't run, and the OpenOffice users can't read the WordPerfect files. The Microsoft Office users publish things to SharePoint, where the OpenOffice users drop their stuff onto a handy WebDAV server somewhere. Office peer-pressure will still work on software selection to a point, even if you absolutely love Package Q for your day-to-day work you won't use it if the software everyone else in the office uses can't do a thing with it.
The trade-off here is balancing the chaos and increased direct costs 'freedom' will introduce to the IT environment versus the productivity bonuses and intangible benefits (morale). That will decidedly depend on the culture of the office, and what it is that they do. I know some people who would leave their current jobs just to get the freedom to order the machine they want and use the software they want to use, even if it means somewhat less benefits.
A friend of mine recently changed jobs. The old job was was Microsoft. Since Microsoft is a software development firm of some significant size, they try to dog-food their own stuff wherever possible; even if the tool is a poor fit for the task at hand. She spent a lot of time clubbing her software to do what it didn't really want to do, all the while knowing that there were two non-Microsoft packages that did exactly what she wanted. The new job is not with Microsoft, and the first day there they gave her an order sheet to order the software she wanted; they wanted results and trusted her to turn them in in an understandable format. Thus, the joys of freedom.
So, to answer the question, it depends. It depends on corporate culture to a significant degree, as well as the sector the company is in, as well as the work being done. In highly creative areas such as design, the benefits can be great. In highly regimented areas such as accounting, perhaps not so much or at least a high degree of freedom won't be worth the ultimate costs.
It's a very Web 2.0 concept. And there is some merit to it. Back in the day when workstation lock-downs were getting common in workplace settings (ZENworks was good for that), there was a debate about some of this. At my old job one thing we wanted to lock down was the wall-paper. That one thing would help reinforce the idea that this was a WORK Pc, not a home PC. The counter argument to this is that such user environment things are mostly harmless, so permitting them allows the lock-down to be less intrusive on the user.
This is another step in that direction. Workplaces have PC configuration standards for a variety of good reasons. You want all machines plugged into your network to not be festering hives of scum and malware, and these sorts of standards can prevent that. On the other end of the scale, high end users know the tools of their field better than your general IT desktop support person does and in theory can do more with the tools they know versus the tools forced upon them.
On the control end of the spectrum, you keep IT costs down by standardizing the configs in your enterprise. This keeps the Total Cost of Ownership down, a big thing for companies with the right internal costing controls (*nudge nudge*). One tech can support many more end users that way, since the range of things they support is kept to a minimum.
On the freedom end of the spectrum, the end user gets exactly the tools they want to do their job. They're happier that way. And since they support themselves, IT costs are controlled. One tech can support many more end users that way, since the bits they're supporting are significantly reduced.
The 'freedom' end of things runs smack into some standard industry practices, such as volume licensing and big-buy discounts. Dell, for instance, sells PCs cheaper if you buy them by the gross rather than in singles as users are onboarded. Specialized packages like AutoCAD also come cheaper if you buy them in packs of 10 rather than one at a time. Licenses all too often these days are timed and enforced, so you could have end users forgetting to renew the license on their Scrivener install and being non-productive for a few days while purchasing gets them a renewed license. The big 'endpoint management suites', what they seem to be calling the AntiVirus/Firewall package these days, all assume enterprise central control.
On the other hand, users liked being treated like reasoning, intelligent people who are capable of making choices about their work environment. This makes for happier workers.
Also working in this favor is the trend to webify everything in the workplace. The days when you have a whonking big file-server to store all the company data on are slowly going away, and being replaced with things like SharePoint (which can get just as big, don't get me wrong). The fights we've had in the past about how to roll out a new Novell Client to all our desktops would be moot in such an environment as the 'client' is called 'Firefox' (or Gnome, or Office 2007).
On the downside of the 'freedom' end of things is piracy. Tools like Zen Asset Management are there to make sure that the software in use is actually legal. In this freedom environment there is the significantly increased probability of someone bringing their 'backup' copy of something from home to install on their work machine and creating legal liability for the company if they get audited.
Another downside is interoperability problems. The Microsoft Office users create document-macros that the WordPerfect Office users can't run, and the OpenOffice users can't read the WordPerfect files. The Microsoft Office users publish things to SharePoint, where the OpenOffice users drop their stuff onto a handy WebDAV server somewhere. Office peer-pressure will still work on software selection to a point, even if you absolutely love Package Q for your day-to-day work you won't use it if the software everyone else in the office uses can't do a thing with it.
The trade-off here is balancing the chaos and increased direct costs 'freedom' will introduce to the IT environment versus the productivity bonuses and intangible benefits (morale). That will decidedly depend on the culture of the office, and what it is that they do. I know some people who would leave their current jobs just to get the freedom to order the machine they want and use the software they want to use, even if it means somewhat less benefits.
A friend of mine recently changed jobs. The old job was was Microsoft. Since Microsoft is a software development firm of some significant size, they try to dog-food their own stuff wherever possible; even if the tool is a poor fit for the task at hand. She spent a lot of time clubbing her software to do what it didn't really want to do, all the while knowing that there were two non-Microsoft packages that did exactly what she wanted. The new job is not with Microsoft, and the first day there they gave her an order sheet to order the software she wanted; they wanted results and trusted her to turn them in in an understandable format. Thus, the joys of freedom.
So, to answer the question, it depends. It depends on corporate culture to a significant degree, as well as the sector the company is in, as well as the work being done. In highly creative areas such as design, the benefits can be great. In highly regimented areas such as accounting, perhaps not so much or at least a high degree of freedom won't be worth the ultimate costs.