Since the Terry Childs and San Francisco story has been making headlines in the IT industry these days, I believe it's important to discuss why such an event took place. As more of this story unravels, it appears that Childs was in fact very dissatisfied with how San Francisco's IT department (DTIS) was run. Was this simply a ploy by Childs to get attention to the matter?

With increased demand, shrinking budgets, and discouraged workforces, the "IT market" in general can be a difficult place to spend every day at work. We're sometimes taken for granted, under-appreciated, and under-compensated for the level of complex and demanding work that organizational leaders demand.

In fact, in a NetworkWorld story titled "San Francisco's mayor gets back keys to the network" by Robert McMillan and Paul Venezia (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/072308-san-francisco-childs.html?hpg1=bn)
it is clear that Terry Childs felt the need to take some sort of a "fall" and bring the problems of the organization to the forefront. In fact, Childs' motion states that he intended to "expose the utter mismanagement, negligence and corruption at DTIS, which if left unchecked, will in fact place the City of San Francisco in danger."

I don't condone what Terry Childs did in this case. In fact, it put the very core of the San Francisco municipal network at risk, which isn't exactly a "professional action". Childs was successful, however, in getting the attention towards some of the organizational problems that he wanted.

Let's face it: IT, telecom, or any type of technical jobs can be, and are usually high stress. It's how we manage that stress, disappointment, and fear of impending doom that defines us as an IT or technical professional. As dire as any situation may become, it's important to realize: we always have the choice of how WE respond to any problem, crisis, disaster, or stress. Therefore, it's incredibly essential that we act in a professional manner to aid our organization, not inhibit it.

What's disturbing in the San Francisco case, is that someway, somehow, Childs rationalized this behavior to illustrate his views of organizational dysfunction. Were there other less-intrusive routes to the same goal? Did he need to jeopardize his career to make a point?

Just my two cents...

This week on Considering Convergence:
Thursday: The Future of the Key System
Friday: Is Convergence DIVERGING?