17 ms·

I'd say it's mostly regulation, risk-aversion, and company size. When you're small, it's easy to avoid regulatory attention and whatever slap-on-the-wrist fine

I'd say it's mostly regulation, risk-aversion, and company size. When you're small, it's easy to avoid regulatory attention and whatever slap-on-the-wrist fine you may get isn't a lot of money. The change and risk aversion really just comes from keeping the business running. When things work, try not to break them. Old large enterprises tend to have a lot of business critical things that "just work" and have been for a long time. Younger/smaller companies tend to have fewer battle scarred systems. But once they get scarred, they typically add a process or policy to prevent it from happening again. After enough of them, congrats, you're enterprise speed.

rossdavidh 8y ago
All true, but I would add: there's a lot less downside to change, when nothing much is working yet. Much of enterprise slowness is irrational, but much is not. Big systems are harder to predict consequences for, and big old systems have a lot that already works.
- kenhwang 8y ago
  Add in the tendency to consolidate and standardize technologies as the company grows for maintainability just means even little changes quickly ripple through the system. It's like microservices, but with systems of people and businesses.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
and SLAs. once you get big enough your client contracts usually have penalties for failures of any kind. that puts the pressure on getting it right on the first try or at least within contract terms, instead of working toward the goal incrementally. partners that allow for some agile, iterative back and forth becomes rarer as they increase in size, especially since often their own system lack the flexibility for continuous integration or safely rolling back changes/data. that's why you get requirements, specifications, architects and solution managers in the enterprises. people love to mock them for being dysfunctional and some truly are, but once contracts get into the millions and lawyer get involved mistakes are no longer "learning opportunities".

rossdavidh 8y ago

All true, but I would add: there's a lot less downside to change, when nothing much is working yet. Much of enterprise slowness is irrational, but much is not. Big systems are harder to predict consequences for, and big old systems have a lot that already works.

kenhwang 8y ago
Add in the tendency to consolidate and standardize technologies as the company grows for maintainability just means even little changes quickly ripple through the system. It's like microservices, but with systems of people and businesses.

LoSboccacc 8y ago

and SLAs. once you get big enough your client contracts usually have penalties for failures of any kind. that puts the pressure on getting it right on the first try or at least within contract terms, instead of working toward the goal incrementally. partners that allow for some agile, iterative back and forth becomes rarer as they increase in size, especially since often their own system lack the flexibility for continuous integration or safely rolling back changes/data. that's why you get requirements, specifications, architects and solution managers in the enterprises. people love to mock them for being dysfunctional and some truly are, but once contracts get into the millions and lawyer get involved mistakes are no longer "learning opportunities".