On 15/12/06, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12/15/06, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No I think if it was a genuine improvement they would be able to > > _demonstrate_ the improvement to _communicate_ why the change was > > required. > > I wish it were so simple. I have first hand experience that it just > doesn't work like that.
And I've had pretty much the opposite experience, creating the business case and effectively communicating why we were using a brand new approach. I've also had lots of experience of techies proposing the use of this or that "latest" technology without a decent justification and without really understanding the full implications of that choice. I've also seen good decisions lost because the techies couldn't communicate the reason for the change effectively. Mainly because they concentrated on the "techy" side of the discussion rather than the business benefits. > > The vast majority of people prefer the status quo to innovation, > because innovation is disruptive and therefore a threat. There is also the problem that many in IT feel that distruption is always a good thing and can't understand why architectural consistency is more important that following the latest fad. > > <insert obligatory reference to "innovator's dilemma" here> <insert obligatory reference to "Death March" and "Mythical Man Month" here /> > > Mark. >
