Someone sent this question to their manager and included me on the CC: list.
"Would you consider tools like Django to quickly build web apps ?"
My suggestion is that a bald query like this can only get on of two possible answers: "No" (and a large number of unsubtle variations like "hell no") and the ego-salving "If it makes business sense, we'll consider it." Which is code for "no".
The "No" card is easy to play. The manager simply trumps it with the "risk" card and the hand is over. Manager wins by saying "open source" == "risk" enough times that everyone up down the food chain can repeat the unsubstantiated claim.
The "If it makes business sense" card is equally easy. The burden of proof is delightfully vague and the resulting action ("consider it") allows an easy toss of the "No" card. Neither requires thought or any action other than the "prevent change" defense.
Permission vs. Forgiveness
In short, asking permission gets you nowhere. I said as much. I got this reply.
"I planted the seed via the email and lets see what happens."
Sorry, but, here's what will happen: Nothing. You have to actually Do something. About the only thing that will turns heads is to build a proof-of-concept. And you'll never get permission to do that; you have to do it surreptitiously. Once you've actually done something, the horse is out of the barn. The bell cannot be un-rung. Now the relationship is one of damage control and forgiveness -- battles where there is no clear Maginot line.
It doesn't matter how good new technology is, it takes an epic problem to lead IT to consider changing course and actually taking action on those considerations. The email didn't characterize or reflect any company-threatening problem. It didn't reflect any problem at all except the usually boo-hooing of software development being slow and expensive.
Course Corrections
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
If someone has decided to change course and is asking which new course they should pursue, you can, sometimes, influence them. To actually change tack, they must see the rocks ahead: they must be desperate, in fear of being fired, and have already decided to fire everyone and start in a new direction.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Remember: change is bad . It's bad because it's disruptive and disruption is risky and risk == cost. (Note, risk does not actually == cost, risk is only "potential cost". Every manager on the planet will act based on the claim that risk == actual cost.)
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
[BTW, most managers who decline to consider open source software are, of course, liars and/or schizophrenics because they already have oodles of open source software. That's not the issue. Really, that's just the usual background level of schizophrenia and mendacity.]
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
The only time when anyone will actually consider open source software is when they are in a "go out of business or get fired" situation.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
The solution more likely to be accepted is one which dovetails with existing technology. If they are using Java, they want to hear more of the same. If they are using VB/C#, they want to hear more of the same. Unless they're already a Python shop, Django doesn't fill the "more of the same" criteria.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
That's why a POC is so powerful. Once the horse is out of the barn, we're no longer seeking permission, we're now into negotiation how much more of this can be permitted.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Playing to Their Strong Suit
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Here's the suggestion they made. This, too, is fraught with peril. "Suggestion: Make some assumptions and give the client an ROI number".
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Sorry, I'm not a fan of ROI for these kinds of projects. ROI rarely makes sense with tooling questions, since we're talking about IT's internal ROI. IT is a cost center: the whole ROI thing is on it's ear because there isn't a positive "return", just the potential of reduced costs at some time in the future. Boring.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Further, software-related ROI requires a lot of supporting opinion. It's rarely fact-based because we are usually unable to do nifty side-by-side comparisons of team A using toolset #1 and team B using toolset #2 to build the Same Application. Software development isn't manufacturing; very little of it is trivially repeatable like this. Who would buy the same software twice in order to do a head-to-head comparison between toolsets?
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
The closest you can come to ROI is a pilot project. Wait! Isn't that just a proof of concept?
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
ROI is a lot of assumptions in a big report that gets you the inevitable "No." Realistic, fact-based ROI looks too small. Assumptions that serve to bump up the ROI get challenged.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Your Competitors Don't Do This
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
No one asked Microsoft for an ROI on Visual Studio 8. No one asked Oracle for an ROI on using PL/SQL for every piece of custom code. No one asked Sun to provide detailed ROI numbers for introduction of J2EE web servers. Nope. Not a single ROI number was used for these decisions.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Why should you play the ROI game when none of your competitors are asked to play?
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
Tooling requires POC. You can't induce anything without tangible proof that the proposed tool beats the pants off the incumbent tool.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.
I don't see how a "you should change course" suggestion can ever work. (A) It begins "you should", which is like beginning with "you people": listening stops almost immediately. And, (B) it includes "change course" which is always unwelcome: it reflects badly on the previous course.