tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post3160054661437518689..comments2013-04-10T12:20:19.993-04:00Comments on Ponderous Programmer: What ENABLES you - is IT on your sidevwdieselhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03455679732966255684noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-56173372429687192342007-12-17T11:21:00.000-05:002007-12-17T11:21:00.000-05:00I think that there is another post in that comment...I think that there is another post in that comment alone. 8-) <BR/><BR/>I agree with you on the base level though - what is out there isn't working, but adding individuality is not going to help. <BR/><BR/>Yes it does work better if we are all moving in the same direction, granted. Its certainly hard to attempt to herd the cats into line. I am not attempting to foster 'more' individuality, but what I am saying is that you should always use the right tool for the right job - and have a policy that says you will attempt to use those right tools OR find an equivalent that is not less than the functionality that you were attempting to get to. <BR/><BR/>Like I have said in the past there is no <A HREF="http://ponderousprog.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-so-passionate-cant-we-all-just-get.html" REL="nofollow">one tool for all jobs</A> so you should try to organize around grouping functionality and addressing needs rather then keeping people from what they perceive they need. It should be possible to do this without letting it get all willy nilly AND you shouldn't have to resort to a flat out NO unless the users are asking for access to their favorite pr0n site, just because. 8-)vwdieselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455679732966255684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-84927743821436301012007-12-17T11:10:00.000-05:002007-12-17T11:10:00.000-05:00It's not that I think what is out there is working...It's not that I think what is out there is working; I don't. But I also don't think more individuality in the process will help either. There is so much work that goes into software, it is expense, hard to produce and easily subject to numerous instabilities. From a company's perspective, the best they can hope for would be the ability to fully leverage any of the work going into development. This works best if you can convince the several species of small furry animals to get together in a big cave and groove with a pict (inspired by a Pink Floyd song title). If everyone is working towards the same goal, it tends to happen faster. Somebody has to set that goal, and assume the responsibly for it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul.<BR/><A HREF="http://theprogrammersparadox.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow"/>Paul W. Homerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02349253120538728302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-27180829022164867442007-12-14T14:00:00.000-05:002007-12-14T14:00:00.000-05:00So the fundamentals were not resilient. I agree - ...So the fundamentals were not resilient. I agree - and I also don't see an easy path out... but IT digging in their heels certainly doesn't help. 8-)vwdieselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455679732966255684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-68870457957305478512007-12-14T11:55:00.000-05:002007-12-14T11:55:00.000-05:00Oh yes, agreed there. What I'm getting at is that...Oh yes, agreed there. What I'm getting at is that the source of the problem is likely to be that the system was not designed well to begin with, and is now far more difficult to adapt than it should have to be; so IT goes into evasive mode to prevent becoming overloaded with work they can't finish. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way out of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-45373355295206607502007-12-14T09:38:00.000-05:002007-12-14T09:38:00.000-05:00OK - so I agree in part with what you are saying, ...OK - so I agree in part with what you are saying, large IT organizations have a lot to deal with and command and control is certainly a way to keep it from spiraling out and becoming unwieldy. The counter is that it should certainly be possible to have a team of folk that is fairly well versed setup a 'light touch' infrastructure such that they are capable of 'incorporating' new things and ideas/tools without making the whole thing be fragile. In some cases this might even stem from the IT group not having good monitoring or other infrastructure to meet the needs (this is a gross generalization, but in some cases of growth companies can certainly be true). <BR/><BR/> I think all too often command and control becomes a defense mechanism and all it does is make user LOATH having to deal with IT to get anything done. Whatever happened to good ol' fashion team work for the betterment of the company? Maybe I am being too idealistic, but when something as simple as getting a new tool into the system because you need it for your team to do their job takes over 7 months and still has not happened... there are too many roadblocks.vwdieselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455679732966255684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8805851830963264865.post-53447277921503155322007-12-14T09:01:00.000-05:002007-12-14T09:01:00.000-05:00There's a lot of talk on the 'tubes about designin...There's a lot of talk on the 'tubes about designing software to be flexible, either by designing it as a tool, or just through smart OO. <A HREF="http://smoothspan.wordpress.com/2007/11/30/making-all-software-into-tools-reduces-risk/" REL="nofollow">This piece</A> comes to mind:<BR/><BR/>"Many times what has happened is a company started out with a great idea and some knowledge of the domain. They built a piece of software that is a very literal embodiment of their view of the domain. So long as the whole domain and all the customers fit their view, life is good. However, for most non-trivial (i.e. interesting market size) domains, nobody knows the whole domain. You learn as you go. Customers throw curve balls. If the only way to adapt to that is to either keep adding tons of features to the software, or do expensive custom work on each deal, that’s way too much friction to scale. A domain specific language makes it possible to maneuver a bit at low cost and give customers what they want."<BR/><BR/>I think maybe what happens is that IT doesn't or isn't able to build a system this way early on, so their systems don't accommodate new needs easily. Thus becoming command-and-control like you describe is probably a defense strategy to keep down the number of changes they have to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com