In a blog post entitled "Don’t Call Yourself A Programmer, And Other Career Advice", one of the authors main points is that the title "programmer" is aligned with the "Cost Center" and should therefore be avoid since individuals in the "Profit Center" will see such a position as a target for cut backs or realignment. I have no real issue with the reality described in the post. Many companies view IT as merely a cost center. In fact they often see IT as a bungling impediment to their plans and profits. I think this has even led some on the "business" side to think in their hearts, "If they are going to fail anyway, they might as well fail for less. Let's out source the work so that we'll fail cheaper." As a result of sentiments like this, the author puts forward a rather harsh, perhaps even Machiavellian world view of how a developer might get ahead: make your title and your actions align with the profit center's sensibilities.
Rather than taking issue with the author's desire to play the game of politics and two-faced self-promotion, I take issue with the current designation of profit and cost center alignment. Having worked in industry as a consultant for six year, and being raised by a CPA for 23 years before that, I've found such a distinction to be contentious at best and incredibly destructive at worst. The grouping creates a sense of us against them. And unfortunately for many the "us" is the people in power and the "them" is everyone else. Frankly this concept is artificial and idiotic.
First, every profit center is profitable only because of the support by the cost center and every cost center is beneficial only because of the profit center. Wikipedia defines a cost center as a unit of an organization that does not directly relate to the profit generation of a business. In this group one finds R&D, marketing and IT. My current assignment is to a large insurance company where I work to revamp an aging business process system. This system is used to manage both claims as well as issue new business. The agents in the field are the profit centers. Their sales activities bring in money for the company. However, if the software that actually does the real heavy lifting of tracking claims, claim history and issuing new business didn't exist, there is no way that the agents could either handle the number of clients they do or handle them as quickly. As a result, the profits would be either lower than they are now or non-existant because the policy holders would switch a quicker company. At the same time the cost centers shouldn't lord anything over the profit centers because of their need. Without the profit center, the cost center would have no reason to create. They would have no means by which to create. Therefore both should be in balance with the other. As a result a title from one should not be looked down on by the other. A title from one should also not be looked upon by the other with more awe.
Second, everyone is a cost center in reality. The sales guy might look at himself and say, "Everyone is a cost center but me." He might justify this statement by thinking about his salary of $100,000 and how he just landed an account worth $1.5 million. Clearly the company has made a lot of money by him. But sadly he still draws a salary. He costs the company more than his salary. He cost the company his salary, his benefits and a portion of his boss's salary and benefits and so on up the chain until we reach the highest C-level executive. If the company could replace the salesman with something that could land a $1.5 million account for just $1,000, they would do so in a heart beat. At the same time if those in the cost center quit, the salesman would have no product and no support. As a result any smugness associated with being in a profit center should be short lived. Interestingly as I was looking up the definition of a "profit center" while writing this I found that Peter Drucker agrees with this point: there are only cost centers.
Finally, most businesses are not just businesses in their vertical market, they are in fact hybridized IT businesses. Every company has technology so engrained in it that to think otherwise is a farce that will lead the company astray to its own death. Every competitive advantage a company has is made possible only by the proper alignment of both the business accumen and the technical expertise. If a company misaligns its IT, or removes it entirely from the VP level down, that company is not long for this world. An insurance company needs IT in order to make the proper decisions about which risk to accept. A pharmaceutical company needs to grow its own internal IT knowledge in order to keep its genomic analysis a secret and advancing. As a result of this hybridization, following the best practices within IT are not a cost, but the only means by which the company can hope to keep advancing. Code that decays before its born due to not having time to properly unit test or code review is a cost waiting to be birthed. Expecting analysts to be nothing more than stenographers for a business power user is fool hearty. The company needs to focus on best practices for IT just as much as they do to the best practices of the profit center for they are one in the same.
While I admit that the world does not work as I might like, I still think that pursuing the enlightened idea that IT and business are one is worth while. One can advance by looking into a dim mirror. That is how many companies see this truth today. But if they put down the mirror and pursue a better reflection of the truth, they can improve their processes and their bottom line.
