|
I'm sure this has certainly been discussed before, but I just had to rant—or show how stupid I am.
Today during a conversation about a query I was working on that involved some scanned business documents the conversation somehow turned to an open source system we have implemented to help retire old mainframe systems written in the late 70s and early 80s. These systems were later converted to a language that was pathetic attempt to get COBOL to compile to .NET, this was about 20 years ago. Sorry...rabbit.
The conversation centered around that if your current business model is failing, you need to change your business model and that was the reason the open source system was brought in. And how the company should have just fallen in line and changed how they do business instead of demanding the open source system be modified to support how business is currently handled.
Now I may be a moron, but I always assumed that software was there to support the business model and the company. I never thought a new system was going to save a company all by itself. To me that just sounds to much like saying if a restaurant is failing, even though it's in a good local, you need to move and build a bigger, more expensive restaurant thinking that will increase business and fix everything. But then don't do anything to improve the quality of the food, service or atmosphere. It might work for a while, but eventually you'll be right back where you were with little or no customers.
Do I have any clue what I'm talking about or have my brains fallen out of my ears?
"...JavaScript could teach Dyson how to suck." -- Nagy Vilmos
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen a software project rescue a business exactly once. Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice. My $0.02
I'd have to agree with you.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Z.C.M. wrote: Now I may be a moron, but I always assumed that software was there to support the business model and the company. I never thought a new system was going to save a company all by itself. To me that just sounds to much like saying if a restaurant is failing, even though it's in a good local, you need to move and build a bigger, more expensive restaurant thinking that will increase business and fix everything. But then don't do anything to improve the quality of the food, service or atmosphere. It might work for a while, but eventually you'll be right back where you were with little or no customers.
Exactly
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Both could be true. If a business model works but the software that supports it is causing problems then change the software. If the software improves things then sometimes the business model may need to evolve to match the new way of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: If the software improves things then sometimes the business model may need to evolve to match the new way of doing things.
possible, but not common
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: but not common
Who can say?
|
|
|
|
|
I have to still see it in that way.
Changing business model usually brings a change of mind, if people is not willing to change it doesn't matter which kind of tool you give them.
I think it is easier (and in what I have seen in my life tend to confirm it) to change the tools once the new mindset is there, than to change the mindset due to new tools.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
^This. The software supports the business model but if it ends up transcending the business model take advantage of that. Facebook is the monster it is today because of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Z.C.M. wrote: I never thought a new system was going to save a company all by itself.
Getting management to change their business model is like waiting for pigs to grow wings so they can fly. From what I've seen over the years, this is what management usually does instead:
1. Replaces existing software with new software that makes all sorts of buzzword bingo claims.
2. Replaces in-house developers with outsourcing because after all, the in-house developers are the cause of the problem.
3. Upper management replaces middle-management, because it's their fault.
4. Expensive consultants are hired to tell upper management what they are doing wrong. Lots of charts, diagrams, and useless time consuming meetings are the result.
I could go on, but those are the top 4.
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot to mention that step 4 results in the same things that the people in step 2 were telling them for free 
|
|
|
|
|
Modern edition:
5. Execs take a large bonus.
6. Declare bankruptcy. 
Seriously, I think the successful firms are the ones who can adopt their business model to the times (and a look ahead). Especially so in this environment.
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with what Richard said, the truth is often in the middle. I deal with a lot of companies that have a model that works\they think it works but they are often strangled by their software that either won't give them the flexibility they need, or it involves a lot of effort (manual or otherwise) to get the results they need. You can then come in, listen to their requirements and give them something that allows their model to really work as they want, and often that leads to "leap frogging" where a good flexible solution allows them to do even more than what they did previously opening up new ways of working.
As a developer there is no better feeling that being sat in a room of managers and have them say "This software can do that?" as they look at each other in amazement, thinking of the possibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Z.C.M. wrote: I always assumed that software was there to support the business model and the company
That sounds reasonable to me. Before there was software there were people, whose job it was to support the company and its current business model.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Although software might often be able to improve a business' processes, I think it's unlikely to improve a business' model.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Since software can sink a successful company, the reverse also holds true. e.g. FoxMeyer Drugs and SAP.
The FoxMeyer Drugs' Bankruptcy: Was it a Failure of ERP?
There are enough other cases. The only constant is change. Adapt, but do it successfully; there's the rub.
(I've written enough COBOL to know a conversion is feasible.
PERFORM ... VARYING is nothing other than a FOR loop. A RECORD is the same as a class / entity. A MOVE is an assignment. etc.)
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: FoxMeyer’s previous system could process over 420,000 orders per evening compared to only 10,000 with SAP R/3 (Scott, 1999).
Wow! Hopefully those managers didn't get any bonuses!
|
|
|
|
|
Posting in Internet follows Newton's 2nd law
For every (serious post) action there is (150% chance of always stupid and seldom ) equal and opposite (funny man ) reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The OP wrote: For every (serious post) action there is (150% chance of always stupid and seldom) equal and opposite (funny man) reaction.
Amarnath S wrote: Isn't this the 3rd Law of Newton[^]?
The OP left room for the 150% part.
(BTW, you're right; it is a parody of the 3rd law)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
When my cats groom themselves I ask them "Are you delicious?"
They keep going so I assume that means yes. I haven't worked up the courage to try it myself though. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I know that when I was at Uni, one of the local Chinese takeaways was found to have a lot of belled collars in it's bin ... so I assume they taste like chicken.
I strongly advise against experimentation in this direction however.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I make slurping noises when my cats groom themselves. The look they give you is priceless, it's as if you've committed the worst faux pas ever.
Yeah I know, small things ...
|
|
|
|
|
I make slurping noises when my cats groom themselves. The look they give you is priceless, it's as if you've committed the worst fur pas ever.
That's how I read your comment.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
