4 ms·
The article does not seem to be telling us what is the cause of this difficulty to change anything. Is it maybe the quality of the existing solutions that makes
by cjfd 5y ago
The article does not seem to be telling us what is the cause of this difficulty to change anything. Is it maybe the quality of the existing solutions that makes it very difficult to change them? I, personally, am inclined to blame the 'technical debt' philosophy. If you never clean up your messes, things will go slower and slower and slower. Also, the mythical man month comes to mind 'add more people to a project and it will take longer'. The biggest problem of too many people being that knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented. So, one should have fewer people than one actually needs in order to make sure that they have enough knowledge.
- ownagefool 5y agoEnterprise IT usually wants to push change without getting their hands dirty. Downstream that means you get people who don't care about about their profession just following orders, or you disrguntle them because they don't understand why they're not able to define a reasonble architecture and instead have to follow the edicts of that weird out of date team that gatekeeps and aren't involved in the problem. Of course, reality is sometimes the product teams don't quite get the full picture and need a guiding hand, but from my experience having someone removed from the practicalities of the situation usuaully doesn't help.
- gctwnl 5y agoThe article is simply saying that with the growth of IT, change is getting harder (existing landscapes have inertia), something the top is slow (if at all) to accept. That makes the role of the person trying to explain that (and why) change is getting harder a more frustrating one.