Industry Analysts and Conferences

I stopped going to most industry conferences a long time ago. In the software world, the only ones I bother with are SDWest and the local edition of No Fluff Just Stuff. I also try to get to OOPSLA once in a while. As for the rest, I can get the same information by reading any of the trade magazines. Otherwise, I tend to stick with much more concise workshops or the birds-of-a-feather sessions.

We were going through a budget triage the other day and the "research" line item came up. A discussion about which account we should keep be it Gartner, Burton, etc. I didn't voice an opinion since I think they are all equally poor. Analysts are playing the game at the same table but, they don't have any chips. Win or lose, they still get paid to be at the table. The other disappointing thing about many of the analysts is that they only report on the current state and maybe stick their necks out about a year, or so. Several of the topics analysts are current ranting about, colleagues and I were researching almost a decade ago, made into corporate "secret-sauce" about 5 years ago and have already leveraged all the competitive advantages of the technology, all before it becomes common practice.

Anyhow, back to triage. After a bit of debate, we all pretty much reached the same conclusion and just decided to get a bunch of corporate subscriptions to the ACM and IEEE.

Transparency vs. Productivity

I was asked to write down my thoughts about transparency vs. productivity in the enterprise. A glib response is that no matter how transparent the process or project, someone will always make the accusation of conspiracy or plead ignorance. Of course, transparency also doesn’t guarantee homogeneous interpretation, either.

In terms of enterprise architecture or just about any other endeavor, it’s always wise to eschew transparency in favor of productivity, especially at the beginning of any task. At least keep the inner workings in the dark until the general idea is developed into a tangible concept that can be tested. This approach can reduce churn, keeps the clarity of the original idea intact yet allows for a fair degree of refinement. Once there is something tangible to share, that’s the time for transparency and as a result, be prepared to reduce the pace of progress by at least 50%!

Companies that are public, in heavily regulated industries or produce life/financially critical systems really don’t care too much about productivity, anymore. This is even more apparent in the shadow of SOX. As soon as any process or product is subject to external or public scrutiny, transparency trumps productivity, every time. This is actually a two-pronged attack on productivity. First, the baggage of transparency is carried by the people who actually get the job done, thereby slowing them down. Second, people who used to be dedicated to getting the job done are now re-purposed into building and maintaining the baggage!

Productivity leads to success, which leads to IPO, which leads to transparency, which leads to lack of productivity. I recall an old military slogan, “Hard work is rewarded with more responsibility and hard work.”

What these larger companies really care about are innovation and lowering total cost of operations.