While I agree with most of your points, could you please tell me which company isn't already inherently broken? Just that I've never seen one.
Business drivers? Reduce cost, improve efficiency, eliminate errors, comply with local legislations, sell more, divest non-core businesses, acquire new businesses and build new products.
Changing the existing shit is necessary just to meet the immediate business needs, let alone the future ones.
let's face it, software is more than half of the problem space
No. It's all people and politics; technology's the easy bit.
Although even ignoring the people and politics, it's all business process first, data second, software third. Infrastructure really does disappear a long way behind.
I'm saying that as a software person. The software happens to be the easiest route to understanding process and data for anybody that isn't a process or data expert.
Just as you don't write software without requirements, you don't design enterprises without understanding the enterprise requirements. Start with the business basics: Who, what, where, why, when. Only then worry about how, and even then start with the non-IT elements of how.
as an EA, his role is not to "drive positive change"; it's to enable and guide it, or at least to not get in the way
Tricky one. Often an EA has to drive change, securing budgets, management backing, ground level support and the exec level sponsorship needed to overcome the one obnoxious idiot trying to protect their precious empire.
In an ideal world, yeah, EAs help people understand what's going on and where, provide insight and guidance, join up teams and initiatives and act as facilitators. In reality I find it's often essential to get hands-on and apply some heft to key projects.
cost, quality and compliance through guidelines and standardisation, not about innovation and change
Again, this is a bloody tricky balance. You want cost control, you must have compliance (or the regulator will shut you down), standardisation is a great way of improving efficiency and assuring outcomes (for customers, regulators and shareholders). You also need the innovation and disruptive technologies, so you need an environment that encourages and supports them.
That means EA need to be part of that process. I can't demand that you do X if it stops you exploring something that could change the industry. I want you investigating Y, and helping me understand its maturity, its possibilities and when it might be ready for adoption by the rest of the company. So innovation is just another business activity that needs facilitation, funding and a level of control.
I'd agree that doesn't meant that I should be doing the investigation and exploration myself. I may realise that it's needed, but lets get a team that understand that domain in depth to do the hands-on work. They'll do it better, they'll build up the skills we may need, and it frees up my time to sit with an MD and convince them that they aren't a special snowflake and they really don't need their own AWS master key.
You and I have very different interpretations of the term Enterprise Architect.
In my world, they don't do any development. Then again, very few organisations develop 'enterprise' software. Most of us buy it in, from Oracle or SAP or Salesforce.
Is it great software? Not really. Is it cheap? No. Is it better and cheaper than trying to develop our own CRM system? Actually, yes.
I don't have time, energy or desire to work out which technologies you should buy. I want you to be informed, apply due diligence, express a strong preference and back it up with evidence that it's not an incorrect choice.
Where I come in is making sure that you don't have EMC, Hitachi AND HP storage, that you pick one midrange server supplier, that you meet the necessary balance between cloud and on-premise servers, and that you're letting Sourcing manage the vendor relationships.
Where I am now, a team investigated monitoring tools, agreed the best one, negotiated an enterprise wide licence and started building the skillsets to properly use it. I think that's great, my job is now very easy: Make sure every fucker else engages with that team to use that tool, and doesn't buy their own.
I don't need to know what the tool is, meet the vendor, take the training course. I just need to know that it's a solved problem and move on to more valuable uses of my time.
It may well take four months to get it formally acknowledged as a 'standard', but that's just red tape. In the meantime nobody's installing anything else if I get to hear about it.
I've had a 9 month career break before, and didn't run out of cash. If I'd run out of cash, I'd have taken some shitty job so that I could avoid having to rely on state aid.
Even shitty jobs pay better than unemployment in this country.
Does working for Starbucks look good on my CV? No. Does bitching about the lack of work earn money? No.
The person to whom I was replying clearly needed income, and if you're not willing to prioritise that above career then don't go expecting my sympathy, and don't prioritise either of them above telling an employer to fuck off if they want you to break the law.
Call yourself an engineer and don't even think ahead?
I don't just know what my response in that situation would be, I know I can afford it because I planned for it. I also work with my managers, their peers and other professionals at my company to prevent a situation even reaching that sort of impasse.
So sure, weigh up the pros and cons. Just don't wait until it's too late, and don't go breaking the law just to avoid being sacked.
jobs are NOT 'just around the corner' for every skilled person who wants one
Bullshit. Just because you don't want to work in Starbucks doesn't meant that the job isn't available.
Staying in your job knowingly breaking the law is criminal. Just fucking rob a bank if money matters that much to you. Why not knife someone if you're willing to gas them to death anyway?
What, it's not your fault? You needed the work? Spare me the fucking sob story.
I hope you successfully find a job, and don't lose your home. I have no ill will to you as an individual. That'll change if you keep pretending that not getting sacked is more important than professional ethics.
"Break the law." "I think that might be against the law. Lets discuss with Compliance and Legal, and get their professional guidance."
"Break the law." "Legal say that's illegal" "Do it anyway" "Hi, is that the whistleblower hotline? My manager.."
I've never yet needed to go that extra step of refusing, getting sacked, suing for unfair dismissal and getting my professional body to step in to help with legal costs.
Slashdot Mirror
If its not broken, don't try to fix it
While I agree with most of your points, could you please tell me which company isn't already inherently broken? Just that I've never seen one.
Business drivers? Reduce cost, improve efficiency, eliminate errors, comply with local legislations, sell more, divest non-core businesses, acquire new businesses and build new products.
Changing the existing shit is necessary just to meet the immediate business needs, let alone the future ones.
let's face it, software is more than half of the problem space
No. It's all people and politics; technology's the easy bit.
Although even ignoring the people and politics, it's all business process first, data second, software third. Infrastructure really does disappear a long way behind.
I'm saying that as a software person. The software happens to be the easiest route to understanding process and data for anybody that isn't a process or data expert.
Just as you don't write software without requirements, you don't design enterprises without understanding the enterprise requirements. Start with the business basics: Who, what, where, why, when. Only then worry about how, and even then start with the non-IT elements of how.
as an EA, his role is not to "drive positive change"; it's to enable and guide it, or at least to not get in the way
Tricky one. Often an EA has to drive change, securing budgets, management backing, ground level support and the exec level sponsorship needed to overcome the one obnoxious idiot trying to protect their precious empire.
In an ideal world, yeah, EAs help people understand what's going on and where, provide insight and guidance, join up teams and initiatives and act as facilitators. In reality I find it's often essential to get hands-on and apply some heft to key projects.
cost, quality and compliance through guidelines and standardisation, not about innovation and change
Again, this is a bloody tricky balance. You want cost control, you must have compliance (or the regulator will shut you down), standardisation is a great way of improving efficiency and assuring outcomes (for customers, regulators and shareholders). You also need the innovation and disruptive technologies, so you need an environment that encourages and supports them.
That means EA need to be part of that process. I can't demand that you do X if it stops you exploring something that could change the industry. I want you investigating Y, and helping me understand its maturity, its possibilities and when it might be ready for adoption by the rest of the company. So innovation is just another business activity that needs facilitation, funding and a level of control.
I'd agree that doesn't meant that I should be doing the investigation and exploration myself. I may realise that it's needed, but lets get a team that understand that domain in depth to do the hands-on work. They'll do it better, they'll build up the skills we may need, and it frees up my time to sit with an MD and convince them that they aren't a special snowflake and they really don't need their own AWS master key.
You and I have very different interpretations of the term Enterprise Architect.
In my world, they don't do any development. Then again, very few organisations develop 'enterprise' software. Most of us buy it in, from Oracle or SAP or Salesforce.
Is it great software? Not really. Is it cheap? No. Is it better and cheaper than trying to develop our own CRM system? Actually, yes.
As an EA, I'd say you managed them properly.
I don't have time, energy or desire to work out which technologies you should buy. I want you to be informed, apply due diligence, express a strong preference and back it up with evidence that it's not an incorrect choice.
Where I come in is making sure that you don't have EMC, Hitachi AND HP storage, that you pick one midrange server supplier, that you meet the necessary balance between cloud and on-premise servers, and that you're letting Sourcing manage the vendor relationships.
Where I am now, a team investigated monitoring tools, agreed the best one, negotiated an enterprise wide licence and started building the skillsets to properly use it. I think that's great, my job is now very easy: Make sure every fucker else engages with that team to use that tool, and doesn't buy their own.
I don't need to know what the tool is, meet the vendor, take the training course. I just need to know that it's a solved problem and move on to more valuable uses of my time.
It may well take four months to get it formally acknowledged as a 'standard', but that's just red tape. In the meantime nobody's installing anything else if I get to hear about it.
Instead of using a different material for the number plate?
Mine are plastic.
No, but the British Prime Minister apparently does. You should catch up on current affairs some time.
Look fuck wit, Agile is not a process.
The reason you're blaming Agile is because you're too fucking idiotic to realise that the problem is the cunt blaming it.
Take some fucking ownership, show some professionalism and start addressing your own very evident ignorance.
A bit of both, but mostly recorded then refined.
Sorry, you expect us to treat your comments with any credibility when you conflate inept Scrum with "Agile"?
With twats like you on the team no wonder there are issues.
This is a German company. They're bloody good at engineering because they're religiously meticulous about shit like this.
I can easily believe there's a wide open audit trail.
That would be giving you zero protection from prosecution. In fact, it confirms your conspiracy guilt.
Now, a print out of the email from your manager stating that company lawyers have confirmed that this is legal would be very useful.
Yeah, but Los Angeles (at 2750 people/square KM) is half the density of London (5400) let alone Seoul (17500), Paris (21500) or Delhi (25000).
Not a good comparison really.
Pretty much all of them make diesels these days. Even Lexus, despite the sniffy salesman going, "No, we don't make diesels" with a snooty attitude.
Yeah, you do now. Fucking deal with it, snooty guy.
I've had a 9 month career break before, and didn't run out of cash. If I'd run out of cash, I'd have taken some shitty job so that I could avoid having to rely on state aid.
Even shitty jobs pay better than unemployment in this country.
Does working for Starbucks look good on my CV? No. Does bitching about the lack of work earn money? No.
The person to whom I was replying clearly needed income, and if you're not willing to prioritise that above career then don't go expecting my sympathy, and don't prioritise either of them above telling an employer to fuck off if they want you to break the law.
I watch big hollywood movies and low budget foreign independent cinema.
If hollywood sinks into a supervolcano and the rest of hte planet survives, good films will continue to be made. Hopefully some of the dross wont.
Call yourself an engineer and don't even think ahead?
I don't just know what my response in that situation would be, I know I can afford it because I planned for it. I also work with my managers, their peers and other professionals at my company to prevent a situation even reaching that sort of impasse.
So sure, weigh up the pros and cons. Just don't wait until it's too late, and don't go breaking the law just to avoid being sacked.
it's fairly easy to engineer emergent behavior
QED, it was an engineer.
Bullshit. A manager can't design that level of indirection. It took an engineer.
They might also be a manager, but don't go pretending that there isn't an engineer at fault here.
jobs are NOT 'just around the corner' for every skilled person who wants one
Bullshit. Just because you don't want to work in Starbucks doesn't meant that the job isn't available.
Staying in your job knowingly breaking the law is criminal. Just fucking rob a bank if money matters that much to you. Why not knife someone if you're willing to gas them to death anyway?
What, it's not your fault? You needed the work? Spare me the fucking sob story.
I hope you successfully find a job, and don't lose your home. I have no ill will to you as an individual. That'll change if you keep pretending that not getting sacked is more important than professional ethics.
"Break the law."
"I think that might be against the law. Lets discuss with Compliance and Legal, and get their professional guidance."
"Break the law."
"Legal say that's illegal"
"Do it anyway"
"Hi, is that the whistleblower hotline? My manager.."
I've never yet needed to go that extra step of refusing, getting sacked, suing for unfair dismissal and getting my professional body to step in to help with legal costs.
American colleagues : Yeah, taking some FTO next week.
Me: FTO?
Them: Forced time off.
I mean, really? Just fucking admit it:
Me: I feel like a break, I'm off next week. Laters.
Yes. Are you familiar with adult discourse?
In the UK it's unfair dismissal at the absolute minimum, quite apart from any private lawsuit.
In the US apparently you have no rights.
I know this. You know this. It's quite likely dcollins knows this.
Stop telling people this and use my suggestion on how to interpret his statement and address his point, not his fucking wording.
Your pendanticism is childish.,