4 ms·
> In 15 years of doing technical due diligence (200+ jobs) I have yet to come across a company where the tech was what eventually killed them. Not my experienc
by leroman 4y ago
> In 15 years of doing technical due diligence (200+ jobs) I have yet to come across a company where the tech was what eventually killed them.
Not my experience..
What does a “tech failure” look like? Do the servers catch fire? Is the web site down? Maybe people are unable to login to their stations?
Hi-tech business is “Tech”, so the failure of the business is in fact the tech failing. More specifically, the business was unable to direct the tech to solve real problems and solve them well enough.. New hires took too long to onboard.. Engineers were only superficially productive.. Communication between the stake holders and engineers was lacking.. etc.. etc..
Take note that in all scenarios above “work” is being done, “progress” is being made.. ceremonies are everywhere and success is seemingly around the corner.. Or is it?
It’s just very hard to see these issues, they are hidden under layers of meetings, firings, hiring, pivots, milestones with little progress in actual business value.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoI think the harder you scrutinize the distinction between a tech problem and a business problem, the harder it becomes to find it. When there appears to be such a distinction, that's usually a manifestation of something like Conway's law, a symptom that there exists an unhealthy organizational divide between business and technology.
- leroman 4y agoI suppose that is my point, sayings such as "I haven't seen a single start-up failing due to tech" is not possible to defend..