5 ms·
First, there's always a customer, and so there is always a promise, and always a customer. Customer can mean you, your boss, an external client, the general pub
by FourthProtocol 5y ago
First, there's always a customer, and so there is always a promise, and always a customer. Customer can mean you, your boss, an external client, the general public, the janitor who's keycard doesn't work on the ladies bathroom at 2am when no project managers, business line owners or even ladies are around to watch him clean.
Second, profitability is usually the number one priority.
Third, they DO use management approaches that make it maximally likely... ...that they achieve profitability.
Fourth yes, they would and they do. Unfortunately most don't understand that it is impossible to estimate a fixed period of time in which an unknown problem can be solved.
This always comes full circle to Steve McConnell's book Software Estimation. In my 34 years in IT, across three continents, in industry sectors ranging from insurance and telecoms to aerospace and defencee, and Nokia Maps, that book will take you closer to the grail than anything else on earth. And you'll still remain light years from an accurate estimate until the day you ship.
- wpietri 5y agoThat first one is stretching the definition of "customer" quite vigorously. Certainly beyond the bounds of the post I was replying to. A company's reputation does not hinge on whether the janitor's keycard works on the ladies' bathroom at 2am by a made-up date. Long-term profit is not the number-one actual priority of American management methods. Not even close. As an example, look at Toyota versus the big 3 American car manufacturers. Toyota is much more profitable [1] and has been for decades. That's because for Toyota profit is an outcome, not a holy grail. The actual priority of American management methods is making executives look/feel smart, in control, and dominant so they can justify extracting lots of cash. I do agree that they use management techniques likely to achieve those feelings. And that includes making up bullshit dates and then insisting everybody make them happen. But that's part of the problem. [1] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/02/22/toyota-per-car-profits-beat-ford-gm-chrysler/23852189/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/02/22/...
- darkerside 5y agoToyota is still pursuing profit. They are just operating within a larger scope of time. Profitable this quarter vs this year vs this decade are all very different goals. Edit: And that definition of customer is not uncommon in the industry. It helps to know who your customer is.
- pdimitar 5y agoDoesn't seem to me like you contradicted your parent poster. They said that profit is not number one and that's it an outcome, not the one and only metric. Also you didn't address their claim that USA companies value good PR and executive bonuses above everything else, even if the project fails miserably -- which matches my observations from 20 years of career as well.
- darkerside 5y agoBeware confirmation bias. There are certainly companies like that, but I bet there are many more that aren't that don't rise to your attention level. Profit is the holy grail for all companies. It's not an accidental outcome that Toyota is profitable. The quest for profit is the basis for everything they do, even if it doesn't seem like it. They just picked their heads up a little compared to their US peers so they can see farther down the road.
- wpietri 5y agoYou are absolutely incorrect about Toyota. And most Lean companies. Their management philosophy is fundamentally different. If you'd like to learn more, maybe start with Rother's "Toyota Kata". Maybe along with the This American Life epsiode "NUMMI".
- xboxnolifes 5y agoProfit not being the metric and profit not being the goal are two completely different things.