What Innovation Looks Like
This shows what innovation looks like when it happens.
1. There's no process for innovation.
2. There's no "permission to fail". Folks just fail or succeed without anyone's support or permission.
3. It's disruptive. Many IT departments don't know how to cope with USB drives, iPads and related leading-edge technology. So these things are simply banned. (Ever walked past a sign that says "No Recording Devices Allowed Beyond This Point" with your iPhone?)
Here's one great quote: "Policies around regulatory compliance, reliability, budget approvals, and support all give IT teams reasons to resist technology driven by end users."
Technology innovation is happening. It is disruptive. Therefore, IT tends to resist the disruption.
The best stall tactic: "Security". If IT lifts up security as an issue, they can resist technology innovation effectively.
Other Disruptive Change
This happens everywhere. It isn't just the iPad. All disruptive, innovative change is met with serious resistance.
Agile Methods. Some IT departments resist agile methods because -- obviously -- the lack of a comprehensive and detailed project plan is a problem. Failure to plan is a plan for failure. The idea of building intentional flexibility into predicting the future is rejected. It's too disruptive to the IT chain of command to reduce the need for project managers.
Dynamic or Functional Programming Languages. It was painful to adopt Java (or C#). Adopting another, different language like Python is insanity. Obviously. Anyone in "Big IT" who is a serious Java or C# developer can tell you that a dynamic language is obviously unsuitable for production use. Mostly, the reasons boil down to "it's different"; different is too disruptive.
N0SQL Data Management. Clearly, the relational database is the only form of persistence that can possibly be used. It is perfect in every way. It can be used as a message queue (because adopting an actual message queue is too much work). It can be used for temporary or transient data. It can be used for non-relational objects like XML documents. Any suggestion that we use something other than a database is often met with derision. Clearly, a non-SQL database is disruptive to the orderly flow of data.
Simplified Architecture. [This is code for "No Stored Procedures".] Since stored procedures have been used with mixed success, some folks argue that they should be used more. On the other hand, it seems peculiar to me to intentionally fork application logic into two places -- application code and database. It seems to add complexity with no value. Lots of DBA's try to explain that some logic is "lower-level" or "more closely associated with the data" or "is a more 'essential' business rule." There's no dividing line here that makes stored procedures necessary or useful.
Try to prevent the problems associated with stored procedures and you will receive a $#!+-storm of abuse. Every time. Reducing the use of stored procedures is a disruptive change. An innovation. A bad thing.
[Want proof of the non-essential nature of stored procedures? Watch what happens when to upgrade or replace an application and migrate your data. Did you need the stored procedures? No, you left those behind. You only kept the data.]
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)