Subject: Re: Back to FSB: "buying": decision making vs. decision impact
From: Tom Lord <>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:00:51 -0800 (PST)

       The business press for IT sounds like a bunch of non-technical
       bozos playing Buzzword Bingo.  In reality 1> many of them do
       understand technology.  Maybe not as much as a developer

It seems to me that to a first approximation, they have a static view
(technology considered independently of its past or future).  Then to
a second approximation they have a dynamic view, but easilly get
snowed on the difference between the purported intention of a
particular standard and its practical implications and simultaneously
give too much weight to supplier reputation rather than supplier
process.  That's far from insane: a wealthy supplier has plenty of
room to recover from mistakes.  Yet those mistakes do create extra
costs for everyone involved.  Alas, these quirks of the press seem to
merely reflect what I frequently see in tech management, so who can
blame them.

The 19th/early-20th century robber-barons had it easy: tech was so
small back then that they could really develop a deep appreciation for
so many details -- really OWN their fields from soup to nuts.  There's
a sort of joke/rumor that some of the older buildings at what was
Carnegie Tech were built to be easily re-purposed as assembly lines
(with gravity-assisted locomotion of parts, easy ingress and egress
for raw materials and finished products, convenient access to rail
lines and rivers).  That kind of deep, structural, non-deterministic
planning was way ahead of its time ;-) (By the 60's, I guess, building
big, goofy office buildings seemed more important to his
organizational heirs than keeping processes and supplies up-to-date.)


I think you're yelling at a stereotype rather than anything anyone has
actually contributed to this list.