Situation 1. If you are forking a project and you can’t submit to the other person’s project but want to receive their updates. This may happen when you are changing a project for a specific purpose that no other business is likely to need/use.
1. Create an empty repository that you will place your code in. Check out that project into a folder on your local computer. [I’ll refer to it as MYPROJECT]
2. Create an empty folder on your local computer for a remote project to be stored in. Retrieve the remote project into that folder [I’ll refer to it as REMOTEPROJECT]
3. Right-Click on the REMOTEPROJECT folder and bring up the Subversion options and select “Export”. Export it into the MYPROJECT folder.
4. All files that are the same will not be marked as having changed. All files that have been updated will be noted in subversion as having changed. You can visit each file and do a diff on it from the repository and merge any changes on an individual bases.
Situation 2. If you are going to use a remote repository but not update it, subversion externals is a good choice. Subversion externals allows you to add any number of folders into your project that get updated from remote repositories.
1. Using a tool such as tortoise SVN, you can select “Properties” and add a property with “svn:externals” as the property name and for property value you add two terms such as “framework http://framework.zend.com/svn/framework/trunk”. The first term becomes a folder in your project and the second term is the repository that it will pull from.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Culture in Business
Recently I read something to the effect that the best way to understand a Chinese person is to be Chinese. The underlying idea was that a shared cultural background was critical in carrying out even the simplest of conversations.
As a consultant over the years, I have leveraged my interpersonal strengths to be adaptive and effective in many different types of organizational settings. Nevertheless, I still am surprised to find that some cultures exist in organizations are difficult for me to understand in the short term, and even mor difficult to like in the long term. My motivation in creating this post is my belief that this reality exists for many other people too, although it may not be as obvious if they aren't out consulting.
As a case in point, recently I was doing development work in a group that consists entirely of people working with the collection and reporting of business data. As such, the IT policies adopted by the IT manager do not include letting anyone install software on their computer, because most of the people in that group don't need that kind of access. Nevertheless, in my role it makes my job very difficult. What makes it even more of a challenge is that the online service for requesting software installation does not work. Every time I have mentioned this over the last 6 months, I get the response that "It works for other people". Nevertheless, I have tried it on many different comptuers and used many different browsers and you simply cannot submit it without getting a bunch of ASP.NET error messages.
Among the many examples of issues that I have run into are that I can't view critical information on the web because of missing or outdated plugins, with my browser sometimes crashing because of outdated installed software, and I can't install many different types of open source software for purposes such as testing or graphics manipulation. Eventually I started using my personal laptop at work to do a lot of development work because I just couldn't get anything done effectively.
In a recent exhange with an IT manager, I was able to understand a lot about their perspective, nevertheless, their perspective as an IT provider for clerical staff made it culturally improbable that they could understand and appreciate that other types of customers might exist for their services. I found that their concerns and perceptions related to IT were so foreign to me (in spite of the fact that I have held the same role as that IT manager), that I felt at a loss as to how to get us on the same page.
In other settings I have seen similar things. Philosophies about people and about business vary from manager to manager, and there is a tremendous amount of conflict that can arise from two people interacting (manager to manager or manager to employee) that share different backgrounds. In many cases, people can share the same goals and even knowledge but be approaching it from backgrounds that are so different that it makes it bewildering for both sides to carry on a conversation.
One thing that this brings to my attention is the importance of hiring in a cohesive manner as it relates to culture. This is a tricky thing. I am not suggesting that diversity is a bad thing, but it is a subjective decision for each manager and employee whether or not they feel that they can deal with a specific case of diversity. First hand experience in an educational environment has shown me that 3 or 4 people with different approaches to problems can lead to bad feelings and hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted salaries as nothing gets produced for years at a time. I do not think it is wise to speak in absolutes, but as a general rule it is critical for organizations to hire and shape their culture carefully. As an example, if FedEx wants to provide fanatical dedication to ontime delivery, then hiring managers and employees who couldn't give a care about that because of other priorities is a combination of oil and water. Nevertheless, there are all too many IT managers out there that are the source of cultural disturbances that goes against the prevailing "common sense" that most others share.
As a consultant over the years, I have leveraged my interpersonal strengths to be adaptive and effective in many different types of organizational settings. Nevertheless, I still am surprised to find that some cultures exist in organizations are difficult for me to understand in the short term, and even mor difficult to like in the long term. My motivation in creating this post is my belief that this reality exists for many other people too, although it may not be as obvious if they aren't out consulting.
As a case in point, recently I was doing development work in a group that consists entirely of people working with the collection and reporting of business data. As such, the IT policies adopted by the IT manager do not include letting anyone install software on their computer, because most of the people in that group don't need that kind of access. Nevertheless, in my role it makes my job very difficult. What makes it even more of a challenge is that the online service for requesting software installation does not work. Every time I have mentioned this over the last 6 months, I get the response that "It works for other people". Nevertheless, I have tried it on many different comptuers and used many different browsers and you simply cannot submit it without getting a bunch of ASP.NET error messages.
Among the many examples of issues that I have run into are that I can't view critical information on the web because of missing or outdated plugins, with my browser sometimes crashing because of outdated installed software, and I can't install many different types of open source software for purposes such as testing or graphics manipulation. Eventually I started using my personal laptop at work to do a lot of development work because I just couldn't get anything done effectively.
In a recent exhange with an IT manager, I was able to understand a lot about their perspective, nevertheless, their perspective as an IT provider for clerical staff made it culturally improbable that they could understand and appreciate that other types of customers might exist for their services. I found that their concerns and perceptions related to IT were so foreign to me (in spite of the fact that I have held the same role as that IT manager), that I felt at a loss as to how to get us on the same page.
In other settings I have seen similar things. Philosophies about people and about business vary from manager to manager, and there is a tremendous amount of conflict that can arise from two people interacting (manager to manager or manager to employee) that share different backgrounds. In many cases, people can share the same goals and even knowledge but be approaching it from backgrounds that are so different that it makes it bewildering for both sides to carry on a conversation.
One thing that this brings to my attention is the importance of hiring in a cohesive manner as it relates to culture. This is a tricky thing. I am not suggesting that diversity is a bad thing, but it is a subjective decision for each manager and employee whether or not they feel that they can deal with a specific case of diversity. First hand experience in an educational environment has shown me that 3 or 4 people with different approaches to problems can lead to bad feelings and hundreds of thousands of dollars of wasted salaries as nothing gets produced for years at a time. I do not think it is wise to speak in absolutes, but as a general rule it is critical for organizations to hire and shape their culture carefully. As an example, if FedEx wants to provide fanatical dedication to ontime delivery, then hiring managers and employees who couldn't give a care about that because of other priorities is a combination of oil and water. Nevertheless, there are all too many IT managers out there that are the source of cultural disturbances that goes against the prevailing "common sense" that most others share.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Dell services have issues
Ironically, one of my first posts ever on a blog was "Disappointed in Dell". I have long forgotten why I was disappointed at this point, but I remember the title (and I would gladly still buy from Dell). That being said, I am again disappointed in Dell. Recently I have been researching self-service technologies, so I was very interested in watching my mother try to use Dell's website and then watching that situation blow up into a disaster.
The problem started with a coupon. My mom (a big spender by home use standards for Dell products) had a $50.00 coupon (a result of a recent large purchase from them) that was going to expire in the near future. The website would not let her apply the coupon and didn't give a reason why.
Then she spent about 30 minutes on the phone during which they took her order, transfered her around a few times, said they couldn't help her, then sent us to the operator and said to use some transfer code like 'TSA' or something, and then we never got off of hold. What a nightmare.
One problem with services like this, both on the phone and on the web, is that there isn't a good feedback loop that management can use to govern the process. If it were an assembly line, you'd see all the toys on the ground and know that all heck had broken loose. In this case, in me helping my mom you have a guy specializing in IT services for his PhD who can't even make an order on his mom's behalf. I suppose I should be angry, but instead I am just in awe.
The problem started with a coupon. My mom (a big spender by home use standards for Dell products) had a $50.00 coupon (a result of a recent large purchase from them) that was going to expire in the near future. The website would not let her apply the coupon and didn't give a reason why.
Then she spent about 30 minutes on the phone during which they took her order, transfered her around a few times, said they couldn't help her, then sent us to the operator and said to use some transfer code like 'TSA' or something, and then we never got off of hold. What a nightmare.
One problem with services like this, both on the phone and on the web, is that there isn't a good feedback loop that management can use to govern the process. If it were an assembly line, you'd see all the toys on the ground and know that all heck had broken loose. In this case, in me helping my mom you have a guy specializing in IT services for his PhD who can't even make an order on his mom's behalf. I suppose I should be angry, but instead I am just in awe.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Problem with Windows Vista solved
Back in a previous life I wrote software for Windows. I just got off of a support call for some software that I once wrote and the results of that call helped explain why Windows Vista is having so many problems with previously built software. It turns out the default installation location is no longer Program Files but rather Program Files (x86). So basically, lots of software that is out there will be referencing "Program Files" specifically when they read or save data and that will cause a problem. The solution is easy. If you have a program called 'videogame', just look for it in C:\Program Files (x86)\ and copy it into C:\Program Files\ and you'll be up and running.
I am going to assume that if programmers had used the special term [Program Files] in their programming folder references rather than hard coding the references, that the upgrade wouldn't be a problem. Still, bad move by Microsoft to change something so foundational. You might as well have not tried to make things backwards compatible at all if you were going to do that.
I am going to assume that if programmers had used the special term [Program Files] in their programming folder references rather than hard coding the references, that the upgrade wouldn't be a problem. Still, bad move by Microsoft to change something so foundational. You might as well have not tried to make things backwards compatible at all if you were going to do that.
Friday, May 02, 2008
MC Hammer, Blogging, and I can still do the running man
After listening to Ruth McCartney speak last week I feel a little more in touch with the music scene as it relates to IT and using it to keep in contact with fans. The same concepts apply to companies who make products and should be cultivating their fan base. Even MC Hammer has a blog.
http://mchammer.blogspot.com/
http://mchammer.blogspot.com/2008/03/blast24-running-man.html
I scrolled down and clicked on the one that mentioned the running man. I love the fact that Hammer not only posted it but commented on it. Hilarious. I can still do these moves by the way.
http://mchammer.blogspot.com/
http://mchammer.blogspot.com/2008/03/blast24-running-man.html
I scrolled down and clicked on the one that mentioned the running man. I love the fact that Hammer not only posted it but commented on it. Hilarious. I can still do these moves by the way.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Employment 2.0
I love the employment curves in this article, especially the unskilled developer curve. On the skilled side, I can relate to the feeling of hitting an apex at which you feel like you've given all you can to a given position or group.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx
In particular I endorse the culture of creating alumni out of employees, where people are expected to outgrow but still love their former companies and colleagues. Alumni might come back, or they might simply refer other great talents to go there and contribute.
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Up-or-Out-Solving-the-IT-Turnover-Crisis.aspx
In particular I endorse the culture of creating alumni out of employees, where people are expected to outgrow but still love their former companies and colleagues. Alumni might come back, or they might simply refer other great talents to go there and contribute.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Trends toward complexity and simplicity in technology
As part of research I am doing on Search technologies, I have been speaking recently with people about the trends they see in search and where they see things going. One thing this has gotten me thinking about is the balance of complexity and simplicity in the evolution of technologies.
Brad King at Yahoo mentioned that the capabilities of search engines are beyond what most users know are available. This is true. In one book that I read, probably The Search by John Battelle, I learned that I could type in math straight into the input box and get back answers. I can also have it directly return definitions. Who new?
So I pose the broad question, will users adopt the featuresets of software providers even though the capabilities of software are well beyond what the users are currently familiar with? In some cases, no. My ability to use a word processor and a spreadsheet have not progressed much at all in the last 10 years or so. I know that there are lots of great features in them, but I could honestly still get by with the $35.00 of Office 97 that I bought way back in the day. And to be honest, I liked and still like the feel of Wordperfect more than office...but I digress. The point is, unless you have a specialized need, you probably don't care about the new features in office productivity software either. So why would you care about advanced features of email or search engines?
On the other hand, people tend to demand more from applications over time. Recently I was working on a web application and I knew that the bar was set so much higher to build this site than it would have been 10 years ago. It is kind of depressing. If I don't use AJAX and some sweet CSS and nice graphics, then my consumers are going to be very disappointed.
So, in some cases people don't care and in some cases people demand more as time goes by. To what extent can businesses drive demand through innovation? Does it have its limits? On the other hand, to what extent do customers drive innovation? Has this balance changed over time or is it consistent? Crowd sourcing is starting to become relatively popular these days and with good reason. On the other hand, companies like Apple and Nintendo do very well by doing the innovation themselves (as I have discussed in previous posts). I guess the issue comes down to complexity. You don't see cars exploding in additionally functionality (at least not the kind that users need to interact with). You don't see cars becoming more like a cockpit of a plane. Check that, you do see these types of trends happening with microwaves and refrigeraters and things like that--but who really wants 15 buttons on the front of the fridge when all they want is a piece of ice? I know I purposely by simpler models because I don't want too many options. Businesses do experiment with innovations, but not all of them hit. So again, I go back to my previous questions, what are the limits for how much businesses can drive consumer adoption of new functionality in software and how much can consumers drive companies to change their feature sets and has this balance changed over time?
Brad King at Yahoo mentioned that the capabilities of search engines are beyond what most users know are available. This is true. In one book that I read, probably The Search by John Battelle, I learned that I could type in math straight into the input box and get back answers. I can also have it directly return definitions. Who new?
So I pose the broad question, will users adopt the featuresets of software providers even though the capabilities of software are well beyond what the users are currently familiar with? In some cases, no. My ability to use a word processor and a spreadsheet have not progressed much at all in the last 10 years or so. I know that there are lots of great features in them, but I could honestly still get by with the $35.00 of Office 97 that I bought way back in the day. And to be honest, I liked and still like the feel of Wordperfect more than office...but I digress. The point is, unless you have a specialized need, you probably don't care about the new features in office productivity software either. So why would you care about advanced features of email or search engines?
On the other hand, people tend to demand more from applications over time. Recently I was working on a web application and I knew that the bar was set so much higher to build this site than it would have been 10 years ago. It is kind of depressing. If I don't use AJAX and some sweet CSS and nice graphics, then my consumers are going to be very disappointed.
So, in some cases people don't care and in some cases people demand more as time goes by. To what extent can businesses drive demand through innovation? Does it have its limits? On the other hand, to what extent do customers drive innovation? Has this balance changed over time or is it consistent? Crowd sourcing is starting to become relatively popular these days and with good reason. On the other hand, companies like Apple and Nintendo do very well by doing the innovation themselves (as I have discussed in previous posts). I guess the issue comes down to complexity. You don't see cars exploding in additionally functionality (at least not the kind that users need to interact with). You don't see cars becoming more like a cockpit of a plane. Check that, you do see these types of trends happening with microwaves and refrigeraters and things like that--but who really wants 15 buttons on the front of the fridge when all they want is a piece of ice? I know I purposely by simpler models because I don't want too many options. Businesses do experiment with innovations, but not all of them hit. So again, I go back to my previous questions, what are the limits for how much businesses can drive consumer adoption of new functionality in software and how much can consumers drive companies to change their feature sets and has this balance changed over time?
Monday, April 14, 2008
Creating An Enjoyable Article In Academic Writing
I don't tend to be a person that is normally at a loss for words when discussing topics I am familiar with. It is therefore very perplexing that I have struggled early on with academic writing. One thing I was vaguely aware of early last year was that although I might bring a number of abilities with me to the field of research, I wouldn't know a good research topic or finding if I were standing on it.
Tonight while working on an essay I had an epiphany of sorts and I believe it will help a lot going forward. The following are my thoughts as I thought through the situation:
Here's what I'm thinking. I'm working on an essay and it just doesn't have impact. I understand the ways in which two kinds of theories describe what is going on with online search. Nevertheless, I struggle to bring them together in a way that makes for an enjoyable and convincing read. As I look at other essays that are good, something that stands out to me is that they bring in tension of some sort. A historical story about something that I don't know about, with a warning and prescription for success, makes a good read. An argument for why something should be done that isn't being done makes a good read. Explaining why something is what it is, which is what I am doing, has less impact. If a tension could be created, a bold statement backed up by theory, then that would provide for an interesting read. Arguing means making an assertion and providing a rationale behind that assertion. Saying that the grass is green and describing why is not an argument. Saying that the grass will stay green and describing why is, potentially, an argument. Saying that the grass is green but could be blue in 2 weeks and then explaining why, is an assertion--is an argument.
In other random thoughts today, I was really enjoying reading the blog of Lewis Elliot today. I am into triathlons and since he is a guy who literally smoked me at a small event last year, I check up on his status from time to time. I wonder if it would even be possible to write about events in a PhD program in that same way that he does and have it be interesting to somebody, somewhere, some day. Something tells me that it is far cooler to talk about puking in Kona while racing on your bike against the fastest guys in the world than it is to talk about a conversation in a doctoral seminar or getting stuck in traffic on the way to school. Nevertheless, maybe I'll give it a try. I bet the people I am working with are going to be famous (well, some already are) and somebody will want to read about it at some point.
Tonight while working on an essay I had an epiphany of sorts and I believe it will help a lot going forward. The following are my thoughts as I thought through the situation:
Here's what I'm thinking. I'm working on an essay and it just doesn't have impact. I understand the ways in which two kinds of theories describe what is going on with online search. Nevertheless, I struggle to bring them together in a way that makes for an enjoyable and convincing read. As I look at other essays that are good, something that stands out to me is that they bring in tension of some sort. A historical story about something that I don't know about, with a warning and prescription for success, makes a good read. An argument for why something should be done that isn't being done makes a good read. Explaining why something is what it is, which is what I am doing, has less impact. If a tension could be created, a bold statement backed up by theory, then that would provide for an interesting read. Arguing means making an assertion and providing a rationale behind that assertion. Saying that the grass is green and describing why is not an argument. Saying that the grass will stay green and describing why is, potentially, an argument. Saying that the grass is green but could be blue in 2 weeks and then explaining why, is an assertion--is an argument.
In other random thoughts today, I was really enjoying reading the blog of Lewis Elliot today. I am into triathlons and since he is a guy who literally smoked me at a small event last year, I check up on his status from time to time. I wonder if it would even be possible to write about events in a PhD program in that same way that he does and have it be interesting to somebody, somewhere, some day. Something tells me that it is far cooler to talk about puking in Kona while racing on your bike against the fastest guys in the world than it is to talk about a conversation in a doctoral seminar or getting stuck in traffic on the way to school. Nevertheless, maybe I'll give it a try. I bet the people I am working with are going to be famous (well, some already are) and somebody will want to read about it at some point.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Technology Team Socialization
A long running debate in the social sciences deals with internal versus external forces behind the behavior of people. Within a corporate environment, knowing how to understand people and work with them is important to receive the maximum benefit from company team members. Knowing whether to address personal or social issues helps businesses direct their efforts appropriately to receive the benefits they seek from their team members.
The dominant perspective of business success is the Resource Based View (RBV). This view perceives the relative advantage of a given business to be the bundle of resources it possesses that are difficult to reproduce at other companies. If a competing company tries to build a similar product with similar resources, it may be unable to do so effectively if the resources are not marshaled effectively. Therein lies an implicit believe that management of resources is paramount for managerial success.
One piece of the bundle of resources that a company has is its culture. Culture is something that is unique from company to company. People spend more time at their jobs than in any other social context (0ther than their families). In light of this, the influence of corporate culture on people cannot be understated. All forms of cultural norms and values, not just about work, but about society and social interaction are inculcated in a business environment. Like the sunshine, this constant influence is present on an individual at least eight hours a day and is likely to leave a cultural tan as it were on the individual.
Technology teams are affected significantly by culture. This culture can be both imported by employees coming into the work force or created on the job. In the current era within which we live, one recent development is that technology teams are increasingly composed of international individuals. A CIO of a billion dollar company I spoke to recently said he could field three full cricket teams at a company picnic. In discussing his staff, he related that his biggest challenge was to encourage the same entrepreneurial spirit in this non-native development team as that which had existed when the company grew from a small group to its current status.
Many interesting questions come up in light of these issues. How much do corporations influence the social process of its team members? What are the implications for companies that hire from other companies as a result of this? What are the effects on society of corporate cultures? What options are available to managers wishing to encourage certain corporate cultures? How do off-shoring and outsourcing affect a single corporation's social culture?
The dominant perspective of business success is the Resource Based View (RBV). This view perceives the relative advantage of a given business to be the bundle of resources it possesses that are difficult to reproduce at other companies. If a competing company tries to build a similar product with similar resources, it may be unable to do so effectively if the resources are not marshaled effectively. Therein lies an implicit believe that management of resources is paramount for managerial success.
One piece of the bundle of resources that a company has is its culture. Culture is something that is unique from company to company. People spend more time at their jobs than in any other social context (0ther than their families). In light of this, the influence of corporate culture on people cannot be understated. All forms of cultural norms and values, not just about work, but about society and social interaction are inculcated in a business environment. Like the sunshine, this constant influence is present on an individual at least eight hours a day and is likely to leave a cultural tan as it were on the individual.
Technology teams are affected significantly by culture. This culture can be both imported by employees coming into the work force or created on the job. In the current era within which we live, one recent development is that technology teams are increasingly composed of international individuals. A CIO of a billion dollar company I spoke to recently said he could field three full cricket teams at a company picnic. In discussing his staff, he related that his biggest challenge was to encourage the same entrepreneurial spirit in this non-native development team as that which had existed when the company grew from a small group to its current status.
Many interesting questions come up in light of these issues. How much do corporations influence the social process of its team members? What are the implications for companies that hire from other companies as a result of this? What are the effects on society of corporate cultures? What options are available to managers wishing to encourage certain corporate cultures? How do off-shoring and outsourcing affect a single corporation's social culture?
Friday, April 04, 2008
Cultural Rigidity in Business Part 1
Today as I walked to my office (passing palm trees, blue skies, flowing fountains--somebody pinch me; I can't believe Arizona is so awesome) my thoughts turned to resistance to organizational change in the corporate setting. Clearly there is a lot of thought that has gone into this topic because we have change management experts out there, so I'm sure my ideas won't be anything new. However, I don't time to do background research on the area so I'll jot down some quick thoughts.
Jim Collins in his book Good to Great talked about a flywheel concept, which is a lot like the idea of a train. It is the idea that something that weighs a whole lot moves very slowly in the beginning, and then someday it is a juggernaut of force and nobody can believe the inertia that it has. This perspective applied to business describes many businesses that seem to grow very slowly, but one day are huge and unstoppable. One of the key ideas is that there were not abrupt changes in what the businesses did as they reached their crescendo. In contrast, businesses which have a lot of momentum can lose it when they make changes.
One thing that jumps out to me is how the element of culture is relevant to maintianing a momentum building business. The other day I spoke about Steve Jobs and John Sculley. Could it be that although Steve Jobs was initially characterized as a tyrant, his business had become so culturally attuned to functioning that way that it could not function otherwise?
Culture seems to get ingrained in people wherever they work. I have found that AT&T people in Utah are characterized by high ethics. They take that with them wherever they go. I have found that people involved with Computer Associates (CA) are frequently dishonest, regardless of the level of management that they are found at. I have found that people at Arthur Anderson were stiff and rigid in their thinking about problems. I found that people at Ernst & Young were more adaptive in thinking about the same problems. I have found that people from Cerner are brash.
One question that comes to mind is how these cultural inculcations affect leaders--or even employes--from one organization as it relates to their succeeding in another. I once heard it said that there was a rule on the street that you should never hire a person out of IBM until they had failed at their first job outside of IBM. The idea being that although they were highly capable, they generally unable to succeed culturally at other organizations as they left IBM with a preconceived notion about how things work in the world. With some self reflection and self awareness caused by failure, however, they became better positioned to share their skills in future endeavors (without failing or destroying the company that they went to).
Culture in the corporate world is a hard habit to break. My father worked at a building materials super store called YardBird. YardBird competed with Home Depot. They built their whole ethos around being whatever Home Depot was not. If Home Depot didn't let their people move from their stations to help others, YardBird would let people go everywhere in the store to help a customer and stay with them as long as needed. If HomeDepot didn't help people out to their cars, YardBird would go out of its way to do so. If HomeDepot ignored a strained looked on a customer's face, YardBird would commit to look for unhappiness in any customer and resolve to do whatever it took to help them. As a result of decades of cummulative cultural habits, YardBird statistically dominated HomeDepot in the markets in which they competed in Northern California. When the owner of YardBird fell sick, however, they sold out to Home Depot. Initially, YardBird employees were told by HomeDepot management that they wanted to learn the special sauce that YardBird had created whcih made them much more effective than HomeDepot. But when the rubber hit the road, lower level managers were unable and unwilling to assimilate anything from former YardBird employees. The same behaviors that helped YardBird succeed against HomeDepot were discouraged at HomeDepot, and ultimately the ideas being YardBird were lost as their former employees left HomeDeport or gave up.
I believe that even when unhealthy habits are promoted within a culture, it is difficult to set that business on the idealized track even when a new boss comes in. If Microsoft or Apple do things in their culture that become proven through research to be inefficient or even destructive, it may be difficult to change directions. I'm not saying that little things can't be changed, but I am saying that major overhauls of culture could be nearly impossible in most businesses. Take Google for example. Like YardBird was the anti-HomeDepot, they seem to be the anti-Microsoft. Imagine if a boss came in and they took away the free lunches because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if they took away the 20% of time to work on personal projects because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if strict schedules were enforced because that is what worked somewhere else. Imagine if working with the government and handing over data about customers was insisted upon. I think that what would happen is that there would be a major loss of inertia as people either left or lost their ability to function effectively in the new environment.
In a future post I'll diagram how this concept impacts businesses.
Jim Collins in his book Good to Great talked about a flywheel concept, which is a lot like the idea of a train. It is the idea that something that weighs a whole lot moves very slowly in the beginning, and then someday it is a juggernaut of force and nobody can believe the inertia that it has. This perspective applied to business describes many businesses that seem to grow very slowly, but one day are huge and unstoppable. One of the key ideas is that there were not abrupt changes in what the businesses did as they reached their crescendo. In contrast, businesses which have a lot of momentum can lose it when they make changes.
One thing that jumps out to me is how the element of culture is relevant to maintianing a momentum building business. The other day I spoke about Steve Jobs and John Sculley. Could it be that although Steve Jobs was initially characterized as a tyrant, his business had become so culturally attuned to functioning that way that it could not function otherwise?
Culture seems to get ingrained in people wherever they work. I have found that AT&T people in Utah are characterized by high ethics. They take that with them wherever they go. I have found that people involved with Computer Associates (CA) are frequently dishonest, regardless of the level of management that they are found at. I have found that people at Arthur Anderson were stiff and rigid in their thinking about problems. I found that people at Ernst & Young were more adaptive in thinking about the same problems. I have found that people from Cerner are brash.
One question that comes to mind is how these cultural inculcations affect leaders--or even employes--from one organization as it relates to their succeeding in another. I once heard it said that there was a rule on the street that you should never hire a person out of IBM until they had failed at their first job outside of IBM. The idea being that although they were highly capable, they generally unable to succeed culturally at other organizations as they left IBM with a preconceived notion about how things work in the world. With some self reflection and self awareness caused by failure, however, they became better positioned to share their skills in future endeavors (without failing or destroying the company that they went to).
Culture in the corporate world is a hard habit to break. My father worked at a building materials super store called YardBird. YardBird competed with Home Depot. They built their whole ethos around being whatever Home Depot was not. If Home Depot didn't let their people move from their stations to help others, YardBird would let people go everywhere in the store to help a customer and stay with them as long as needed. If HomeDepot didn't help people out to their cars, YardBird would go out of its way to do so. If HomeDepot ignored a strained looked on a customer's face, YardBird would commit to look for unhappiness in any customer and resolve to do whatever it took to help them. As a result of decades of cummulative cultural habits, YardBird statistically dominated HomeDepot in the markets in which they competed in Northern California. When the owner of YardBird fell sick, however, they sold out to Home Depot. Initially, YardBird employees were told by HomeDepot management that they wanted to learn the special sauce that YardBird had created whcih made them much more effective than HomeDepot. But when the rubber hit the road, lower level managers were unable and unwilling to assimilate anything from former YardBird employees. The same behaviors that helped YardBird succeed against HomeDepot were discouraged at HomeDepot, and ultimately the ideas being YardBird were lost as their former employees left HomeDeport or gave up.
I believe that even when unhealthy habits are promoted within a culture, it is difficult to set that business on the idealized track even when a new boss comes in. If Microsoft or Apple do things in their culture that become proven through research to be inefficient or even destructive, it may be difficult to change directions. I'm not saying that little things can't be changed, but I am saying that major overhauls of culture could be nearly impossible in most businesses. Take Google for example. Like YardBird was the anti-HomeDepot, they seem to be the anti-Microsoft. Imagine if a boss came in and they took away the free lunches because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if they took away the 20% of time to work on personal projects because that wasn't efficient. Imagine if strict schedules were enforced because that is what worked somewhere else. Imagine if working with the government and handing over data about customers was insisted upon. I think that what would happen is that there would be a major loss of inertia as people either left or lost their ability to function effectively in the new environment.
In a future post I'll diagram how this concept impacts businesses.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Review Process
I am getting my first taste of what it is like to go through a review process this semester. In some ways I am pleased because I get a chance to interact with people who in some cases know more about my topics of interest than I do, and they push me in directions to learn more.
One downside is that it can be stressful. As part of the seminar we are in, we currently have a total of 6 reviewers for the essays we are working on. Each reviewer looks at about 5 different factors and comments in each area. That isn't a big deal until you commit yourself to responding to every comment they make in a revised draft as well as work them into a new draft. Think about the numbers involved here--if you have 5 factors x 2 comments, that is 10 comments per reviewer and 6 reviewers, so a total of 60 comments to address. It was hard enough to re-write the essay, let alone sit down and address 60 different comments. You do more writing addressing what you did to address the shortcomings than you did to write your whole essay.
One downside is that it can be stressful. As part of the seminar we are in, we currently have a total of 6 reviewers for the essays we are working on. Each reviewer looks at about 5 different factors and comments in each area. That isn't a big deal until you commit yourself to responding to every comment they make in a revised draft as well as work them into a new draft. Think about the numbers involved here--if you have 5 factors x 2 comments, that is 10 comments per reviewer and 6 reviewers, so a total of 60 comments to address. It was hard enough to re-write the essay, let alone sit down and address 60 different comments. You do more writing addressing what you did to address the shortcomings than you did to write your whole essay.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Sculley vs. Jobs
One story that will always stick out in my mind is that of John Sculley removing Steve Jobs. Many managers use frameworks through which they make decisions, and some of the ones we use in business providing interesting lenses through which to see the events that happened in the lives of these men.
On the one hand you have Steve Jobs. Many years ago, before the success of the iPod and the new generation of Macs, I saw Steve Jobs (probably on the PBS series Triumph of the Nerds) relate that he had hired the wrong guy. The brief background on this statement is that Steve Jobs had hired Sculley away from Pepsi to be a CEO at Apple and their relationship deteriorated to the point that Jobs was stripped of any authority in the company that he had founded. How do like them apples?
It is hard to say who I would have sided with then or even now. Without knowing either man personally, I am cautious of giving an assumption of correctness to either one.
Steve Jobs was a man who, in the media, was portrayed as egotistical and maniacal in the management of his people. In that sense, I think the average person was probably happy to hear that a cocky punk got what he had coming to him.
On the other hand, I like some of the ways he did things. He was always known as the inspirer. Nearly 10 years ago I remember hearing that he would explain to his engineer the value of reducing boot time on a computer. A reduction of even 5 seconds would literally result in saved man lives (economically speaking) each day as hundreds of millions of people wait for their computers to boot. Year after year I think about that as I wait for my Windows machines to boot. I always notice that my computer gets slower with each service pack that I install, until my computer doesn't run anymore. I can reformat the thing and start over, but the latest patching will cripple an old computer (and often times my needs are very simple).
Then you have Sculley. Other than Jobs, I can scarcely find anyone that is willing to say something negative about him in the media (other than for taking an ill-advised job with a company under legal investigation). If I were him, I'd probably be happy with that situation. It also makes me uneasy, however. Having held management roles and having had managers, success or failure at any given moment for a company is not necessarily a result of the manager. Sculley succeeded at Pepsi and became their CEO. He bombed at Apple. The Pepsi taste test campaign was brilliant (attributed to him). Other than that, I don't know what he did with certainty. I've known other wonderful men that served in top capacities at major companies, but in some cases they were riding waves of inertia that had little to do with their talents. In other cases, I've seen managers do things where they are clearly the driving force behind success. In still other cases, I've seen managers look good in spite of their ineptness because of people constantly fighting with them to do the actual correct things.
And now things come full circle and Jobs comes back older and wiser and does some brilliant things. He still manages in a way that makes the skin of some people curl. He decides how a product will be and "the public be damned". But much like Nintendo and their similar approach in launching the Wii, he is successful. In these two cases, it isn't that they don't care about the customer, it is just that they have a passionate belief that what they are doing is the right thing to do and they are willing to face criticism for doing it. I've been in those situations myself. Sometimes you know that nobody in the world world would let you do the thing you think is right and so the opportunity only exists if you are in charge. This approach flies in the face of many modern approaches for product design such as crowd-sourcing for innovation. It isn't that one approach is right and one is wrong every time, but sometimes one is better than the other for a given situation.
At any rate, what a head trip it must be for Steve to be back in the driver's seat of the company he was kicked out of, and doing a bang up job at it too. The media portrays him now as a wise, experienced overseer as opposed to the way he was previously portrayed.
Who would I want to work for, Sculley or Jobs? I guess I'll never know. But if I were to launch a product, I'd love to be inspired by Job's high-minded ideals. I'd also love Sculley's perspectives. I guess the real answer is that I'd love to have either as a consultant, but neither as a boss.
On the one hand you have Steve Jobs. Many years ago, before the success of the iPod and the new generation of Macs, I saw Steve Jobs (probably on the PBS series Triumph of the Nerds) relate that he had hired the wrong guy. The brief background on this statement is that Steve Jobs had hired Sculley away from Pepsi to be a CEO at Apple and their relationship deteriorated to the point that Jobs was stripped of any authority in the company that he had founded. How do like them apples?
It is hard to say who I would have sided with then or even now. Without knowing either man personally, I am cautious of giving an assumption of correctness to either one.
Steve Jobs was a man who, in the media, was portrayed as egotistical and maniacal in the management of his people. In that sense, I think the average person was probably happy to hear that a cocky punk got what he had coming to him.
On the other hand, I like some of the ways he did things. He was always known as the inspirer. Nearly 10 years ago I remember hearing that he would explain to his engineer the value of reducing boot time on a computer. A reduction of even 5 seconds would literally result in saved man lives (economically speaking) each day as hundreds of millions of people wait for their computers to boot. Year after year I think about that as I wait for my Windows machines to boot. I always notice that my computer gets slower with each service pack that I install, until my computer doesn't run anymore. I can reformat the thing and start over, but the latest patching will cripple an old computer (and often times my needs are very simple).
Then you have Sculley. Other than Jobs, I can scarcely find anyone that is willing to say something negative about him in the media (other than for taking an ill-advised job with a company under legal investigation). If I were him, I'd probably be happy with that situation. It also makes me uneasy, however. Having held management roles and having had managers, success or failure at any given moment for a company is not necessarily a result of the manager. Sculley succeeded at Pepsi and became their CEO. He bombed at Apple. The Pepsi taste test campaign was brilliant (attributed to him). Other than that, I don't know what he did with certainty. I've known other wonderful men that served in top capacities at major companies, but in some cases they were riding waves of inertia that had little to do with their talents. In other cases, I've seen managers do things where they are clearly the driving force behind success. In still other cases, I've seen managers look good in spite of their ineptness because of people constantly fighting with them to do the actual correct things.
And now things come full circle and Jobs comes back older and wiser and does some brilliant things. He still manages in a way that makes the skin of some people curl. He decides how a product will be and "the public be damned". But much like Nintendo and their similar approach in launching the Wii, he is successful. In these two cases, it isn't that they don't care about the customer, it is just that they have a passionate belief that what they are doing is the right thing to do and they are willing to face criticism for doing it. I've been in those situations myself. Sometimes you know that nobody in the world world would let you do the thing you think is right and so the opportunity only exists if you are in charge. This approach flies in the face of many modern approaches for product design such as crowd-sourcing for innovation. It isn't that one approach is right and one is wrong every time, but sometimes one is better than the other for a given situation.
At any rate, what a head trip it must be for Steve to be back in the driver's seat of the company he was kicked out of, and doing a bang up job at it too. The media portrays him now as a wise, experienced overseer as opposed to the way he was previously portrayed.
Who would I want to work for, Sculley or Jobs? I guess I'll never know. But if I were to launch a product, I'd love to be inspired by Job's high-minded ideals. I'd also love Sculley's perspectives. I guess the real answer is that I'd love to have either as a consultant, but neither as a boss.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Testing My New Web Cam
I picked up this new Logitech camera today at Walmart (while waiting for my oil change). Pretty cool, but the video and sound are out of synch.
Random Thoughts
Today I was going to get my oil changed and I went to Walmart. I thought it was a good idea to save money buy doing it the cheap way at a Super Walmart. Unfortunately, with only one car in front of me they said it would take an hour. That makes me think hard about the value of my time. We should have a service where you sign up for this stuff online (gas too) and people just stop by your house and take care of it.
On the way there I passed a Super K, (Kmart). I wondered if I would use an oil service offered by Kmart. Somehow getting my oil changed at a place once known as "came apart" doesn't seem likely.
Right now I'm installing a logitech quickcam. Despite the fact I have a new laptop. It is installing very slowly. I think they should call it a "slowcam".
On the way there I passed a Super K, (Kmart). I wondered if I would use an oil service offered by Kmart. Somehow getting my oil changed at a place once known as "came apart" doesn't seem likely.
Right now I'm installing a logitech quickcam. Despite the fact I have a new laptop. It is installing very slowly. I think they should call it a "slowcam".
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Early Mental Stretching in the IT Business Program
Academicians catch a lot of grief from people in industry about the relevance of the work done in schools. Despite this, however, most of the people in industry have been to school and probably liked some of their professors. I was certainly one of the people that had professors that I liked and I aspired to be like some of them, and that had influence on me leaving industry and pursuing a PhD.
Despite the fact that I have begun this journey, I do not feel that I am qualified to give a definitive description of what it is all about. I have asked questions about relevance myself and have found my opinions have shifted over time and I believe they will continue to shift. Being a former practitioner, I think I am not unique in the struggles that I experience as a PhD student in order to understand what research is and how to value it.
In my first term, I studied many classic IT theories and read many modern IT papers. Unlike the laws of gravity, none of them really jumped out as if to say "this is a universal law that governs business or the use of IT within businesses". In fact, it has been argued that despite being decades old, the IT emphasis has yet to deliver a theory that defines it. In other words, there hasn't been a theory or something that builds on that theory that people both within and without it can point to and say "this is an important finding and it validates the existence of your discipline". In contrast, Supply and Demand is something that is relevant and important to a field like economics.
One experience that is probably unique to me is that I am working during my first year in the bureaucracy side of things. I work for the Office of Research at the school. One thing that is unique to this experience (as a Business Student), is I get to see the funding and grant proposals that come out from non-business schools and I can contrast it to what we in the Business School do. One thing that stand out to me is that all of the hard sciences are working on tangible things that make a big impact in the world. People here are working on new storage materials for electronic devices, for solutions to viruses and cancer, for ways to repair spinal cords, etc. To be frank, those kinds of things resonate a bit more than do some of the business theories, like the framework that businesses compete based on bundles of resources.
One thing that differentiates business schools from other schools is their funding. All the hard science schools generate hundreds of millions of dollars in local and federal funding through grants. And based on the problems they are trying to solve and the jobs that get created as a result of successful completion of these research activities, they deserve it.
Business is different. I believe that our funding comes in part through the MBA programs and private donors and companies. At first glance, it seems that the research we do pales in comparison to what other hard science schools research.
So why do we even have business schools? To some extent, much of what we learn about doesn't transfer directly to a job. It isn't a vocational school, so we don't learn or teach hard skills, for the most part. I mean, the closest to vocational training is probably accounting, and I'm sure that could be taught through bookkeeping courses of some sort at a vocational school or something. The rest of the stuff could probably just be picked up on the job.
This term I am starting a sociology course, and even though I haven't yet attended the first class, I think that business school is in part a school that falls under sociology. Sociology is tricky, it isn't a hard science like the laws of Physics. You get to observe things, you try and apply prediction and control to given situations, but it isn't provable in the same ways. And yet despite this, interactions with others in a group setting defines everything we do in business.
For instance, economics is useless when two people are involved, but add a 3rd person or more and predictable behaviors emerge, collectively representing markets. Working within a corporation is all about a social setting, and that is what differentiates it from a self-employed entrepreneurship. Marketing teams, accounting teams, finance teams, sales teams, internal and external support teams, boards of directors, software teams, operations teams, etc. They are all important. Without these management structures defined by social networks, most people don't have jobs in this world. Nevertheless, the study of these things is still "fuzzy" compared to hard science. There is no right or wrong way to do marketing. There is no right or wrong way to do project management. There are an infinite number of variations of these things in practice, and what may be suitable for one period of time may not be for another as social conditions and expectations change (like gender-based promotion).
Let's take a step back again. In sociology, you can't really answer the question about which is the right or wrong type of government. You can, however, observe it, experiment with it, hypothesize about it, and learn from it. Although there is seemingly never a perfect answer of right and wrong because of the millions of ways to adapt any sociological construct, it can be classified, compared, and contrasted. In the same way, in business, you might not be able to say that a particular management style is the right one, but you can classify it, measure it, and put it in a framework.
A lot of people leaving business school are probably saying "they didn't teach me anything in school". And if that means that they weren't told the right or the wrong way to do something, they are probably right. If you are given a bunch of frameworks to see the world through, and none of them are perfectly provable, then you could easily conclude that you haven't learned anything useful.
And so back to the beginning of this post. Is academic work relevant and what can I do in the field of IT? As it pertains to business, academic work is definitely subject to criticism and there is a lot that isn't relevant to creating a sellable product. Most people in academia, however, appreciate the day to day operations of business but are working on describing bigger questions. The answers to most of these questions are ultimately not provable, but trying to understand social world around us whether within business or outside of it is powerful and what comes out of this work affects the way people understand the world and act within it. The product of this work has already infiltrated everything we do in a business setting and how we understand it. Does Business Research matter? The way to answer this might be to ask what happens when you take away the filters it has provided us such as: "How do you classify and market to people? How do firms differentiate themselves? How do you keep people happy in a company and what is fair? How do you set prices? How do you motivate? How do you promote? How do you organize? How do you communicate? How do you make decisions? How do you collect and analyze data? How do you manage risk? How to you keep records? How do you do project management?" etc. etc. etc. There isn't a right answer, but you can understand a lot and share that with the world. You can understand these fields through observation, theory alone, or both. You can spend a lifetime observing, testing, and explaining, but there will never be a time when it isn't easy to question the value of understanding the world around us and efforts made to improve upon it, because it isn't quantifiable, but it the social world of business permeates all we do.
Despite the fact that I have begun this journey, I do not feel that I am qualified to give a definitive description of what it is all about. I have asked questions about relevance myself and have found my opinions have shifted over time and I believe they will continue to shift. Being a former practitioner, I think I am not unique in the struggles that I experience as a PhD student in order to understand what research is and how to value it.
In my first term, I studied many classic IT theories and read many modern IT papers. Unlike the laws of gravity, none of them really jumped out as if to say "this is a universal law that governs business or the use of IT within businesses". In fact, it has been argued that despite being decades old, the IT emphasis has yet to deliver a theory that defines it. In other words, there hasn't been a theory or something that builds on that theory that people both within and without it can point to and say "this is an important finding and it validates the existence of your discipline". In contrast, Supply and Demand is something that is relevant and important to a field like economics.
One experience that is probably unique to me is that I am working during my first year in the bureaucracy side of things. I work for the Office of Research at the school. One thing that is unique to this experience (as a Business Student), is I get to see the funding and grant proposals that come out from non-business schools and I can contrast it to what we in the Business School do. One thing that stand out to me is that all of the hard sciences are working on tangible things that make a big impact in the world. People here are working on new storage materials for electronic devices, for solutions to viruses and cancer, for ways to repair spinal cords, etc. To be frank, those kinds of things resonate a bit more than do some of the business theories, like the framework that businesses compete based on bundles of resources.
One thing that differentiates business schools from other schools is their funding. All the hard science schools generate hundreds of millions of dollars in local and federal funding through grants. And based on the problems they are trying to solve and the jobs that get created as a result of successful completion of these research activities, they deserve it.
Business is different. I believe that our funding comes in part through the MBA programs and private donors and companies. At first glance, it seems that the research we do pales in comparison to what other hard science schools research.
So why do we even have business schools? To some extent, much of what we learn about doesn't transfer directly to a job. It isn't a vocational school, so we don't learn or teach hard skills, for the most part. I mean, the closest to vocational training is probably accounting, and I'm sure that could be taught through bookkeeping courses of some sort at a vocational school or something. The rest of the stuff could probably just be picked up on the job.
This term I am starting a sociology course, and even though I haven't yet attended the first class, I think that business school is in part a school that falls under sociology. Sociology is tricky, it isn't a hard science like the laws of Physics. You get to observe things, you try and apply prediction and control to given situations, but it isn't provable in the same ways. And yet despite this, interactions with others in a group setting defines everything we do in business.
For instance, economics is useless when two people are involved, but add a 3rd person or more and predictable behaviors emerge, collectively representing markets. Working within a corporation is all about a social setting, and that is what differentiates it from a self-employed entrepreneurship. Marketing teams, accounting teams, finance teams, sales teams, internal and external support teams, boards of directors, software teams, operations teams, etc. They are all important. Without these management structures defined by social networks, most people don't have jobs in this world. Nevertheless, the study of these things is still "fuzzy" compared to hard science. There is no right or wrong way to do marketing. There is no right or wrong way to do project management. There are an infinite number of variations of these things in practice, and what may be suitable for one period of time may not be for another as social conditions and expectations change (like gender-based promotion).
Let's take a step back again. In sociology, you can't really answer the question about which is the right or wrong type of government. You can, however, observe it, experiment with it, hypothesize about it, and learn from it. Although there is seemingly never a perfect answer of right and wrong because of the millions of ways to adapt any sociological construct, it can be classified, compared, and contrasted. In the same way, in business, you might not be able to say that a particular management style is the right one, but you can classify it, measure it, and put it in a framework.
A lot of people leaving business school are probably saying "they didn't teach me anything in school". And if that means that they weren't told the right or the wrong way to do something, they are probably right. If you are given a bunch of frameworks to see the world through, and none of them are perfectly provable, then you could easily conclude that you haven't learned anything useful.
And so back to the beginning of this post. Is academic work relevant and what can I do in the field of IT? As it pertains to business, academic work is definitely subject to criticism and there is a lot that isn't relevant to creating a sellable product. Most people in academia, however, appreciate the day to day operations of business but are working on describing bigger questions. The answers to most of these questions are ultimately not provable, but trying to understand social world around us whether within business or outside of it is powerful and what comes out of this work affects the way people understand the world and act within it. The product of this work has already infiltrated everything we do in a business setting and how we understand it. Does Business Research matter? The way to answer this might be to ask what happens when you take away the filters it has provided us such as: "How do you classify and market to people? How do firms differentiate themselves? How do you keep people happy in a company and what is fair? How do you set prices? How do you motivate? How do you promote? How do you organize? How do you communicate? How do you make decisions? How do you collect and analyze data? How do you manage risk? How to you keep records? How do you do project management?" etc. etc. etc. There isn't a right answer, but you can understand a lot and share that with the world. You can understand these fields through observation, theory alone, or both. You can spend a lifetime observing, testing, and explaining, but there will never be a time when it isn't easy to question the value of understanding the world around us and efforts made to improve upon it, because it isn't quantifiable, but it the social world of business permeates all we do.
Bad Programmers or Bad Managers?
A few days ago I read an article that claimed the dot-bomb was caused by bad programmers. I tried to go back and find it today but I couldn't and instead I spent 30 minutes reading lots of other related but interesting articles.
At any rate, the assertion made in that article seems ridiculous to me. You mean to tell me that most of the ideas that were funded in that time period failed because of programmers? I don't recall hearing anything in that time period about how a business would have succeeded if there weren't so many bugs in a given website or if it had been released 50% faster. On the contrary, one company I worked with found a way to give away about $100,000 in services every month and supported tens of thousands of customers, but when asked how they were going to make money with that customer base, they weren't sure.
One of my pet peeves in the software programming world is the tendency to assert that the programmers have all the answers, or that they should. Recent programming paradigms over emphasize the importance of software developers and minimize the importance of understanding the purpose for which the software is being built. Agile programming fits into this category. On the one hand, I do see that waterfall methodologies can be bad if you launch a monolithic project and 3 years later you find that what you intended to build does not meet market needs. On the other hand, most of the programming work that gets done in the world is not some bleeding edge project that requires throwing out a formal design process done with the help of someone who specializes in understanding needs and deliverables. To take the same thought process to the construction world, you wouldn't fire every architect and building inspector that ever lived and trust the construction of everything to anybody that has ever hammered two boards together, even if they have a really good recursive model for getting feedback on their activities.
In the end, achieving great results in what is usually a very plain vanilla software world is brought about by solid business skills. To succeed in the dot.com era as well as today, you needed a good idea and a way to market it. You need to have a way to produce an income. The skill of the programmers in writing code or a useful development methodology will seldom bring about anything of lasting value in business if the core principles of business are overlooked, and that is an area that programmers are not trained for. The dot com bust isn't attributable to the programmers, it is attributable to the managers and visionaries of that time period.
At any rate, the assertion made in that article seems ridiculous to me. You mean to tell me that most of the ideas that were funded in that time period failed because of programmers? I don't recall hearing anything in that time period about how a business would have succeeded if there weren't so many bugs in a given website or if it had been released 50% faster. On the contrary, one company I worked with found a way to give away about $100,000 in services every month and supported tens of thousands of customers, but when asked how they were going to make money with that customer base, they weren't sure.
One of my pet peeves in the software programming world is the tendency to assert that the programmers have all the answers, or that they should. Recent programming paradigms over emphasize the importance of software developers and minimize the importance of understanding the purpose for which the software is being built. Agile programming fits into this category. On the one hand, I do see that waterfall methodologies can be bad if you launch a monolithic project and 3 years later you find that what you intended to build does not meet market needs. On the other hand, most of the programming work that gets done in the world is not some bleeding edge project that requires throwing out a formal design process done with the help of someone who specializes in understanding needs and deliverables. To take the same thought process to the construction world, you wouldn't fire every architect and building inspector that ever lived and trust the construction of everything to anybody that has ever hammered two boards together, even if they have a really good recursive model for getting feedback on their activities.
In the end, achieving great results in what is usually a very plain vanilla software world is brought about by solid business skills. To succeed in the dot.com era as well as today, you needed a good idea and a way to market it. You need to have a way to produce an income. The skill of the programmers in writing code or a useful development methodology will seldom bring about anything of lasting value in business if the core principles of business are overlooked, and that is an area that programmers are not trained for. The dot com bust isn't attributable to the programmers, it is attributable to the managers and visionaries of that time period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)