3 ms·

I wish I would have read some of this commentary 15 years sooner. > The reason their tech is so shit is not because of lack of skills or money but because a lo

by xpe 4y ago

I wish I would have read some of this commentary 15 years sooner. > The reason their tech is so shit is not because of lack of skills or money but because a lot of existing money depends on nobody having those skills. Are you summarizing what you wrote earlier in your comment? Or generalizing? I’m not following and/or skeptical of this characterization. In my experience with large organizations, the lacking quality of technology tends to result from: - hiring outsiders (often contractors but sometimes corporate IT teams) to build things - the outsiders have little incentive to build it well to solve long term problems - the managers hiring the outsiders don’t really understand the technology domain well enough Put another way: A. the people who build software “solutions” for internal business processes may be the only ones who appreciate how complex and messed up these processes are. B. If they are not compensated nor respected properly, and don’t stick around for future iterations, how is the next version going to be significantly better?

Nextgrid 4y ago
I'd summarize it by saying that the reason behind technology generally lacking in large companies is a result of mismatched incentives. In large, established companies, a lot of processes that could nowadays be replaced by software and automation are done by people. Some of those people are senior employees and/or have a manager whose standing within the company depends on the number of people they manage. Some of those people may even have "money under the table" relationships with vendors of subpar solutions that will be jeopardized by a new in-house solution being developed. The feedback loop in large companies is long enough that individual employees can make decisions that are beneficial to their individual situation at the expense of the firm's profitability, but that fact will only come to light in so long that by that time they will have moved on or retired. Therefore the reasons behind tech being shit at large companies is typically a blend of: * nobody within the company having enough expertise to truly vet the people/consultancies they're hiring, resulting in lackluster results * people within the company know (or eventually realize) that the people they've hired are competent enough to put them out of a job, so they give them intentionally-sabotaged instructions to deliver something subpar as to protect their job * the working conditions, pay and/or working conditions within the company are so bad that nobody competent enough to make a change walks through the door, so the only people that do walk through that door wouldn't be able to make an improvement even if there were no other roadblocks in the way. In general, in my opinion, it is a combination of all these factors. Incompetence of the incoming talent is a big one (that benefits the people relying on the status-quo), but should there be a breakthrough employee that can actually make a difference, he will be stopped because of the other reasons (otherwise he'd put many people in a tricky situation and they don't want that).
- ornornor 4y ago
  This has been my experience as well and it took a (very long) burnout + a resignation to understand.

by xpe 4y ago

Nextgrid 4y ago

I'd summarize it by saying that the reason behind technology generally lacking in large companies is a result of mismatched incentives. In large, established companies, a lot of processes that could nowadays be replaced by software and automation are done by people. Some of those people are senior employees and/or have a manager whose standing within the company depends on the number of people they manage. Some of those people may even have "money under the table" relationships with vendors of subpar solutions that will be jeopardized by a new in-house solution being developed. The feedback loop in large companies is long enough that individual employees can make decisions that are beneficial to their individual situation at the expense of the firm's profitability, but that fact will only come to light in so long that by that time they will have moved on or retired. Therefore the reasons behind tech being shit at large companies is typically a blend of: * nobody within the company having enough expertise to truly vet the people/consultancies they're hiring, resulting in lackluster results * people within the company know (or eventually realize) that the people they've hired are competent enough to put them out of a job, so they give them intentionally-sabotaged instructions to deliver something subpar as to protect their job * the working conditions, pay and/or working conditions within the company are so bad that nobody competent enough to make a change walks through the door, so the only people that do walk through that door wouldn't be able to make an improvement even if there were no other roadblocks in the way. In general, in my opinion, it is a combination of all these factors. Incompetence of the incoming talent is a big one (that benefits the people relying on the status-quo), but should there be a breakthrough employee that can actually make a difference, he will be stopped because of the other reasons (otherwise he'd put many people in a tricky situation and they don't want that).

ornornor 4y ago
This has been my experience as well and it took a (very long) burnout + a resignation to understand.