The problem with that kind of money-first approach is that it's falling into the trap of disregarding developers, and seeing them as a mere interchangeable "resource" for converting time into $$$, and technology choice determining the exchange rate.
This is exactly what we've been accusing others of doing, so we really want to avoid becoming our own worst enemies here! Perhaps a more influential argument would be: "This is frustrating our developers, and is damaging our ability to both acquire and retain talent. Good programmers don't want to see their skills stagnating, and there's still a strong market for good engineers even in this recession. I'm concerned that some of our most capable people will vote with their feet and it's going to hurt our bottom line. There's a very real risk that we'll lose people who we can't then replace, and here's how I think that risk can be mitigated..." On 2 December 2011 09:16, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>wrote: > On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:07:39 +0100, zentrop...@yahoo.co.uk < > zentrop...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > just a note: >> >> i was never talking about "technology for technology sake". >> >> all my "let's try..." thingies came from making stuff better (be it >> faster processes, automated ones, better performance and so on). >> > > Are you able to translate all these good intentions into an internal > report that *proves* that better technology makes more money for the > company (again, sorry about that, but the company is not primarily > interested in the frustration of developers, is interested in making more > money. And developers aren't necessarily the only frustrated class of > employees in a company. Sure, less frustrated employees might trigger > efficiency improvements, but again this must be proved). Translated, this > means: are you able to talk in the business language? > > > > -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <javaposse%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/javaposse?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en>. > > -- Kevin Wright mail: kevin.wri...@scalatechnology.com gtalk / msn : kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright google+: http://gplus.to/thecoda <kev.lee.wri...@gmail.com> twitter: @thecoda vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright steam: kev_lee_wright "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
