Talk:Shadow IT

Bias
This article is biased as there is little differentiation between "Shadow IT" and "Embedded IT". Restated, the governance models noted support centralized services model, where there are decentralized service models that are highly effective. Federated, network, or Agile models as part of LEAN or process improvement do not sacrifice audit, management, or control; they simply shift where the control points are and how change is managed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwieser (talk • contribs) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprofessional Nonsense
In the context of the business world, this article reads like the weaselly self-justification of a strident manager caught running a potentially dangerous Stealth IT system. There is almost nothing correct about the second paragraph:

"Shadow IT is considered by many an important source for innovation and such systems may turn out to be prototypes for future approved IT solutions. On the other side, shadow IT solutions are not often in line with the organization's requirements for control, documentation, security, reliability, etc., although these issues can apply equally to authorized IT solutions."

What "many"? Who? I've never seen a reaction to a Stealth IT operation other than alarm by upper management, an order for an immediate audit - always resulting in a dismantling and/or take-over by IT and once, a firing on the spot. The attempt to equate some Stealth IT with IT Operations is flat-out ridiculous and literally not possible: when IT Operations has a problem with control, documentation, security and etc. it's a competency issue. In the case of Stealth IT, they're operating outside the bounds of their assigned responsibility: undermining - at the least - the authority structures of the company and at the worst, creating an unknown and unauthorized collapse-point for the business. Mad Bunny (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Counter point: Sometimes shadow IT is highly desirable, and sometimes people get promotions because of their work on Shadow technologies. A company had a need, someone did work that met that need, a manager saw that work and liked it, and gave them a new job of managing that new tech solution. This will not always be the case obviously, and I don't know how to turn this kind of anecdote into a relevant wiki-appropriate mention, but the idea that "Shadow IT is always bad" is absolutely wrong. 70.61.180.2 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No Positives?
Shadow IT keeps the wheels from grinding to a halt inside large organisations. It helps keeps defunct processes moving and turns around usable tools and communication channels that greatly speed up the efficiency of organisational workgroups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.207.67 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of opinions
The drawback section sounds like a rant from disgruntled IT professionals. I summed them up into three main points. I also did the same to the benefits.

There are also a lot of anecdotal evidence on both sides. I toned them down.

The part about "perceived or actual limitations" makes those who set up shadow IT solutions are simply paranoid of the "Big Brother". "Limitations" suffice.

I hope these changes will bring some balance to the article. Gerry P. Kan (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)