According to Marc Andreesen, "In general, there are two kinds of IT departments - call them "early adopters" and "stuck in the mud". "Early adopters" want to harness technology as a competitive edge and look for reasons to act. "Stuck in the mud" departments actively look for excuses to not act."

What ever happened to the tried and true Goldilocks version where there is also a "just right" option?

It's pretty clear from this interview in Information Week that Andreesen has felt a bit burned by some less than successful startup ventures, and if you take it personally, it's easy to start lumping your prospective customers into such broad, innacurate categories (it's also an easy way to lose business you might otherwise have gained).

It's also an interesting perspective for CIOs to study: this is how some, and perhaps many, tech startups view your departments today. If you happen to like what they offer, you're visionary; if not, you're only there to be circumvented by selling directly to users.

While there are definitely IT departments that resist change out of fear and simply for the sake of the status quo, there's little realization outside the field that many of them are simply discharging their stated duties of providing secure, stable infrastructure and service to run the business on. Every startup thinks they are bringing out something great and innovative, but the fact is that a lot of them ship regurgitated and poorly built junk, and it's wise, not "stuck," to be cautious with what they have to peddle. Personally, I view it as a warning sign when a company feels like it needs to bypass the IT department to make a sale... there may be a few who are legitimately concerned about the old fuddy duddy CIO, but I feel that there are more who don't have a strong enough technical case to pass muster selling to someone who knows enough to see through it.