<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: We&#8217;re all technology managers now</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2006/04/19/were-all-technology-managers-now/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2006/04/19/were-all-technology-managers-now/</link>
	<description>by Neil McIntosh</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 13:45:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Mc</title>
		<link>http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2006/04/19/were-all-technology-managers-now/comment-page-1/#comment-664</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Mc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:08:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.92/~complew7/?p=373#comment-664</guid>
		<description>Hi Muz (to readers: this is the guy who must share a large portion of the blame for getting me to do an MBA in the first place. He got his years ago). I think the answer to all this, as well as Nik&#039;s useful separation of the various discussions, is that technology management and general management have become, in many (most?) cases, one and the same.

This isn&#039;t the first time such mixes have happened; journalism and management have always been mixed, after all. Journalistic managers now, however, have to add a third string to their bow if they&#039;re to keep up - that of technology. 

Then, just to add the cherry on top, all three disciplines - journalism, general management and technology - are changing rapidly, with interactions between the three powering some of that change in each. It&#039;s all a bit bloody complicated. I should draw a diagram, and probably will in tomorrow&#039;s exam :-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Muz (to readers: this is the guy who must share a large portion of the blame for getting me to do an MBA in the first place. He got his years ago). I think the answer to all this, as well as Nik&#8217;s useful separation of the various discussions, is that technology management and general management have become, in many (most?) cases, one and the same.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t the first time such mixes have happened; journalism and management have always been mixed, after all. Journalistic managers now, however, have to add a third string to their bow if they&#8217;re to keep up &#8211; that of technology. </p>
<p>Then, just to add the cherry on top, all three disciplines &#8211; journalism, general management and technology &#8211; are changing rapidly, with interactions between the three powering some of that change in each. It&#8217;s all a bit bloody complicated. I should draw a diagram, and probably will in tomorrow&#8217;s exam <img src='http://www.completetosh.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nik</title>
		<link>http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2006/04/19/were-all-technology-managers-now/comment-page-1/#comment-663</link>
		<dc:creator>Nik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.92/~complew7/?p=373#comment-663</guid>
		<description>There are two things going on here. First, there&#039;s updating your technology to ensure the on-going value of your business -- but the same business. Second, there&#039;s evolving your business to move with changing technologies.

I&#039;m sure Ivan Fallon (your link) would happily advocate the first, and that&#039;s what your textbook is mostly discussing.

But what he rejects (paper/web integration) is a case of the second, and that&#039;s what you&#039;re discussing.

Of course, I totally agree with you that technology and management should be a core competence, and you and I would agree that that entails recognising when you have to evolve your business. But I guess where some people see a two-way process (technology and management inform each other) others see a one-way process (management dictates technology).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are two things going on here. First, there&#8217;s updating your technology to ensure the on-going value of your business &#8212; but the same business. Second, there&#8217;s evolving your business to move with changing technologies.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure Ivan Fallon (your link) would happily advocate the first, and that&#8217;s what your textbook is mostly discussing.</p>
<p>But what he rejects (paper/web integration) is a case of the second, and that&#8217;s what you&#8217;re discussing.</p>
<p>Of course, I totally agree with you that technology and management should be a core competence, and you and I would agree that that entails recognising when you have to evolve your business. But I guess where some people see a two-way process (technology and management inform each other) others see a one-way process (management dictates technology).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Muz</title>
		<link>http://www.completetosh.com/weblog/2006/04/19/were-all-technology-managers-now/comment-page-1/#comment-662</link>
		<dc:creator>Muz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 03:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://69.89.31.92/~complew7/?p=373#comment-662</guid>
		<description>Interesting stuff indeed Neil, as it raises all sorts of questions for us about where boundaries should be drawn around our jobs, our responsibilities and our skillsets.

It&#039;s no longer enough for us to be journalists, or journalists and managers - we need to be journalists first, highly technically adept secondly and then some of us might fancy ourselves as managers as well. 

All well and good, but from a staffing point of view how many people can we actually find who are going to tick those boxes? And is it a realistic expectation that people should be that rounded? 

I know it&#039;s a slightly tangential thought, but it is certainly occupying a lot of my headspace at the moment - I just can&#039;t find people who are good enough journalists and who have the technical wherewithall to prepare engaging copy (sorry, I&#039;m trying to fight back against content) for multi-platform distribution.

And then in my own case, I&#039;ve got the journalism runs on the board, I&#039;ve ticked the management skills box and I&#039;m technically adept... but as you would have found with your podcasting project, the pressure to become a technical expert in all areas is huge. We&#039;re working on a video project at the moment and that has virtually turned me into a TV guru. It&#039;s nuts, where does it end?

I guess the upshot of all this is that we have to suck it up and raise our own standards and be responsible for our continuing education because otherwise the geeks will surely inherit the earth.

Allowing the geeks - or the techs, or however you want to describe them - to maintain the upper hand would surely present us with a 1984-esque scenario where Rupert made his Wapping Dash. Are geeks the new troublesome inkies? 

Anyway, that&#039;s enough of a ramble for just now. It&#039;s good to hear that you&#039;ve stuck with the MBA and that you&#039;re getting a lot from it. 

When are you coming Down Under for a beer?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting stuff indeed Neil, as it raises all sorts of questions for us about where boundaries should be drawn around our jobs, our responsibilities and our skillsets.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s no longer enough for us to be journalists, or journalists and managers &#8211; we need to be journalists first, highly technically adept secondly and then some of us might fancy ourselves as managers as well. </p>
<p>All well and good, but from a staffing point of view how many people can we actually find who are going to tick those boxes? And is it a realistic expectation that people should be that rounded? </p>
<p>I know it&#8217;s a slightly tangential thought, but it is certainly occupying a lot of my headspace at the moment &#8211; I just can&#8217;t find people who are good enough journalists and who have the technical wherewithall to prepare engaging copy (sorry, I&#8217;m trying to fight back against content) for multi-platform distribution.</p>
<p>And then in my own case, I&#8217;ve got the journalism runs on the board, I&#8217;ve ticked the management skills box and I&#8217;m technically adept&#8230; but as you would have found with your podcasting project, the pressure to become a technical expert in all areas is huge. We&#8217;re working on a video project at the moment and that has virtually turned me into a TV guru. It&#8217;s nuts, where does it end?</p>
<p>I guess the upshot of all this is that we have to suck it up and raise our own standards and be responsible for our continuing education because otherwise the geeks will surely inherit the earth.</p>
<p>Allowing the geeks &#8211; or the techs, or however you want to describe them &#8211; to maintain the upper hand would surely present us with a 1984-esque scenario where Rupert made his Wapping Dash. Are geeks the new troublesome inkies? </p>
<p>Anyway, that&#8217;s enough of a ramble for just now. It&#8217;s good to hear that you&#8217;ve stuck with the MBA and that you&#8217;re getting a lot from it. </p>
<p>When are you coming Down Under for a beer?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

