4 ms·
Defining "It" to be shipping software feels so broad as to be useless. In perticular, you're not working in the same semantic framework as GP, who was talking
by hhmc 4y ago
Defining "It" to be shipping software feels so broad as to be useless.
In perticular, you're not working in the same semantic framework as GP, who was talking about "It+1", "It+2" and so on
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y agoActually, no. It has been my experience that actually delivering, working, high-Quality, supported, documented software (regardless of what the software does), within a reasonable period of time, is beyond the capabilities of many corporations. I suspect that some folks make money by convincing others to invest, then hightailing it, before the chickens come home to roost, as opposed to actually selling a finished and supported product to end-users. In that case, looking like a "shipper," is much more important than actually being one.
- hhmc 4y agoI'm thrilled for you, that you're so good at delivering software. But this feels really besides the actual points being made here.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago"It," "It+1," "It+2," etc. can definitely be delivering software. But that's just one "It" on the continuum. It could also be grant-writing, selling, managing, singing, shredding guitar, racing minibikes, whatever. In any given case, there's always some threshold of what an "effective It" is. It may not be a clear-cut line. For example, research is very "fuzzy," and a researcher that can do "It," may be excellent at failure, because their job is to poke holes in theories. In fact, if the company is all about getting A-round funding, then folding up the card tables, and moving on, someone that "looks like a shipper" could be an effective "It."
- jdlshore 4y agoComplete agreement—soup-to-nuts delivery of software for a particular ecosystem (Apple in this case) is definitely an "it" I can imagine companies hiring for.