> It's why enterprises get solutions which, again and again, are unperformant, don't meet their actual needs, deliver poor satisfaction ... This is a caricatur

> It's why enterprises get solutions which, again and again, are unperformant, don't meet their actual needs, deliver poor satisfaction ... This is a caricature that I would also have believed until I was involved in it. It's the vision of some lumbering dinosaur stumbling to it's death, bloated with age and cranky. There is definitely some truth to it but like all caricatures that truth is greatly exaggerated. The reality is a lot more subtle. In many cases it is decades of institutional experience that creates a deep conservatism. > [...] Microsoft can make a ton of money selling some of these hacks to enterprises I think this is the negative way to view it and again the reality is different. The conservatism is the opposite than what you think. If I say "we need to stitch together these base systems ..." the questions I get are "How to do we monitor the integrations? Who gets called at 4am when something downstream goes down? Who ensures those integrations are kept up-to-date over the lifetime of the project? What are the ongoing maintenance tasks and who does them?" etc. They are in fact trying to overprotect themselves against hack solutions since these systems may live decades. All of those questions have answers of course, but they are additional pieces of planning and infrastructure that we have to bring to the table. They are also questions that must be answered before we even consider beginning a project. So I think it is more fair to see Microsoft not as "selling hacks" but more as being a patient guide through all of the peculiar institutional conservatisms. They speak the right language and take the time to understand the concerns of the managers.