Software as a profession sucks, a rant.

[bogstad-e+AXbWqSrlAAvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org (Bill Bogstad)]

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:42 AM, David Rosenstrauch wrote:
>> But that's exactly the point: ?large companies for the most part are -
>> by definition - in "milk the cash cow" mode. ?As a function of their
>> size and maturity in their market, most large companies are not risk
>> takers and don't branch out in new directions. ?(At least not until
>> some
>> other company has "proved" the new direction first.) ?There's a few
>> exceptions to this rule (e.g., Apple) but very few.
>
> Again, I disagree. ?Some large companies are like that. ?Some small
> companies are like that, too. ?But not all. ?The exceptions are proof
> that the "rule" is invalid.

If you mean not 100% sure.  Not everyone who falls from a fifth story
window dies, but you should avoid planning your life based on the
opposite result.

By the way, a whole book was written to some extent on why the 'rule'
normally holds:

The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christensen

Paperback: ISBN-10: 0060521996

It made a big splash when it came out in 1997.   Unlike most business
books, I felt it was actually worth reading.
The author is a professor at the Harvard Business School (for what
that's worth to you).

It doesn't actually say that large companies don't innovate.  It
suggests that they tend to only innovate in ways that are desired by
their largest customers.  As a secondary effect, since the largest
customers are often large companies which also
do the same you end up with a decided lack of innovation in large
companies.   If a company has revenue of $10 milllion dollars a day,
then it's not worth a senior manager's time to approve a change that
will save the company $100,000.  And
the answer will be NO if you can't prove that your change won't
negatively affect that $10 million a day revenue stream.

Bill Bogstad