[raducu]

> he people I found worst at this were IT.

My experience as IT in modern banks was the opposite. The legal department were absolute assholes when it came to software features. And I'm talking absolutely 100% ok features, like paying your bills from the banking application.

The least fun, trigger happy, cover their buts people I've ever seen.

Like all they could ever say was NO. I guess they were heavily incentivized to just say NO to everything.

[arethuza]

I remember working with a corporate customer whose in house architecture team was so difficult to work with that I joked that they could be replaced by a rule in their email system that simply replied "No" as the message if I ever emailed them.

[ziml77]

That was my experience too. Legal wanted things locked down hard. IT was more than happy to make things easier for users as long as legal wasn't getting in the way. Usually meant the systems were simpler too if we had fewer rules and controls to enforce.

[fireflash38]

Auditing is assumption of blame or responsibility to another party.

They are incentivized to strike the best balance of certifying (who wants to go to a place that never certifies) and validity (rubber stamp mills reflect the blame).

Yes, it is meant to be adversarial, to a point.

[CSSer]

I don’t think you’re going to find a consensus on this because it really just comes down to the quality of the employees in each discipline. Actions speak louder than words. I’ve seen the IT people GP is describing. I’ve also seen yours. In GP’s scenario, they often even mean well but are very overwhelmed because they’ve come to exist in a space where _everything is IT_ because no one else is remotely qualified to fill the specialty gap. When I found myself in your scenario, the opposite was true and it completely matched what you described.