Oh, you're not IT, you say. View it as an epithet, do you? Well then hope against hope that your collocation service fixes the glaring security holes you leave in the dev servers you shift into prod.
I don't view IT as an epithet I view it as a specific skillset that we don't need full time in house. IT is about being an expert at OS, Network and Database management. If we want to deploy openstack, we call our contract IT company. If our fileserver goes down, we call IT. If we are seeing a performance bottleneck in our network we call IT.
Everybody else though is focused on a completely different task, making great visual effects. To do that we write tools to assist artists, streamline workflow and automate time consuming tasks.
If I have trouble with a linux box I call a kickass IT guy who knows Linux backwards and forwards. If I need someone to streamline the workflow for managing a VFX sequence with 800 assets with evolving character rigs and ensuring that an animator can transfer their animation to a new rig I'm not going to IT I'm going to a technical artist who has deep domain knowledge on both character animation and rigging.
If that developer decides that they need a database to track animations between versions they will probably develop on a database on their local workstation. When they're happy and want to move it to production then we meet with IT, tell them "We'll have 40 users with about 10,000 requests per minute." They'll recommend hardware or say that an existing server can handle it and deploy a production ready database. They'll ensure it fits in with our existing security policies, firewalls, access rights etc and then handle maintenance and backup.
Just because someone touches a computer doesn't make them "IT". Not because IT is an insult but because it would redefine the role too broadly. Would you call a technical animator who works on developing fluid simulations an IT person? No.
Similarly someone who works on the Unreal Engine's source isn't in "IT" they are a developer. They are working on very specific problems unique to computer graphics or audio or AI or Animation etc. The person though who ensures that developer has the infrastructure they need isn't someone to be looked down on, they're just in a very different role. However when that developer says that they need 10TB of shared storage at 400MB/s to 5 users then you call IT. That's specifically *not* working two jobs that's using people where they are most productive. I see the hierarchy as such:
Physicists - Develop principles.
Fabrication Experts - User principles of physics to create better chips.
Chip Designers - Design processors which can "do work".
Fundamental Software Developers - Write the software to expose the hardware to regular developers. (OS, Drivers, File Systems, Runtimes, Networking Stacks, Compilers etc, Databases, etc.)
IT - Deploys and maintains the hardware designed by Chip Designers and software by the Systems Engineers doing the low level fundamental work necessary.
Developers - Those who write functional software to solve specific problems.
Users - People who use the software.
As I see it a fab engineer should understand physics, a chip designer should understand the limitations of fabrication, a systems engineer should understand chip design, IT should understand drivers and other low level systems engineering, Developers should know how to do limited deployments of their development environment.
Users should ideally be able to write tools to solve their problems.
But to use the obligatory car analogy, I'm not going to call a civil engineer to consult on how to tune the steering on a race car. I will call them and have them design a great race track to drive the car on, but their role is one of deploying and repairing infrastructure for cars to drive on, not to design the cars except where the two overlap by necessity.