Reliable Systems

It is very tempting to be one of the herd of gazelles in technology.  Every time there’s  a sense of a shift in the wind, everyone starts to run in a new direction.  For the past year I’ve been reading about how it’s all going to be laptop computers from here on out.  In fact, not even full fledged laptops, but netbooks - computers with small screens and small keyboard who’s main distinguishing characteristic is that they’re less of a computer than anything else around.

If all this sounds a little off kilter from reality, perhaps a few hard numbers would help:

Quoting Computer World, who asked “Do Business Desktop PCs have a future?”:

While desktop PCs account for the bulk of personal computers sold to enterprises, the gap in laptop sales to enterprises is closing. Of 168 million PCs sold worldwide to professional organizations in 2008, about 95 million were desktops and 73 million were laptops. That’s compared to 94.6 million desktops and 47.3 million laptops that shipped in 2006.

Now, as with any statistics there’s two ways to look at these numbers:

1. Laptops have grown tremendously in their total percentage of the market, and that growth rate has them on track to take over the world.
2. The majority of the growth in computer sales is coming in the form of laptops.

The gazelles are taking the first road.  And why not?  People love to assume the disruptive is true, it’s a lot more interesting.  Before you charge down that road, consider what seems likely.  There are a few problems with the first conclusion:

• Two data points don’t make a pattern: If you follow the trend back farther, the sales of PC desktops has held up consistently, but laptop sales go up and down.  This would seem to indicate that the most likely interpretations of the data are that either the overall market is expanding (for example by people having two systems) or that this is a momentary, periodic surge in laptop purchases.
• Past large growth rarely projects forward: Just because there was a large growth in one year (either in absolute or percentage turns) doesn’t mean it will repeat at all.  It’s just as likely that the next year pattern will be flat or even retreat.

So before you see the first twitch and assume it signals a migration of the whole herd, step back and think through the underlying facts.  Is this really the first sign of a monumental shift?  Or just another twitch of the needle?  Then look at your own situation.

Now, we have a few laptops, but we have more hard core desktops - the laptops are used for on the road presentations or working at Starbucks for fun.  Of course, we’re developers so we’re in the category of users that are always excluded from the norm.  But what’s not to love about a desktop?  For the same money they will always be faster and more capable than a laptop because they don’t have the burden of being small or extra power efficient.  Even if you buy into the idea that everything will be run through the web so computers are just glorified terminals…  Something still has to compose all of those web pages and make it all come together, and web apps can burn a surprising amount of processor and RAM locally.

In the end, I think we’re seeing a lot of folks buying second computers or getting additional laptops for other uses that complement their primary work computer experience.  Additionally, there are folks in emerging markets that need what laptops offer (self-contained, reliable power) more than performance but this reflects an increase in the overall market, not a shift in the existing market.

When I was growing up I spent a lot of time with my father doing woodworking.  One lesson you pick up pretty quick when woodworking is that you have to keep the work clean at each step.

• If you take a piece of wood and don’t sand the surface smooth it won’t take a stain evenly.
• If you let glue creep out of the joint and get on the wood, the stain won’t look right in that spot.
• A piece of dust on the surface will get magnified by each layer of varnish.

Each layer depends on what’s underneath it.  Any flaw in a lower layer will tend to get magnified and distorted by layers above it.

Whenever I get involved in enterprise architecture I get reminded of this analogy because I often run into irrational exuberance that you can add a layer to an existing system and paint over the flaws underneath.  I was involved in a few projects like that early in my career:  It was too hard to talk directly to the mainframe from the web server so you put a layer in front of that.  There was already a C++ layer doing a DCE RPC gateway, but that was also too hard to program against for large use so we added a COM interface to the DCE RPC gateway.  We made some prototypes and validated the concepts and charged in full bore, only to run into big delays and teething problems near the end of the project trying to get everything polished up and suitable for production.

The problem is that at each turn you may be making the developer’s short term life easier by giving them an interface more natural to their preferred programming environment but since it just builds on the layers underneath it will end up with all of the limitations they have - and they can show up in the most surprising places.  For example, we ran into problems where certain input would cause failures which we ultimately discovered was caused by % being used as an insertion marker in a gateway library several layers underneath what we were doing - so at best it would drop the % and the following character, but at worst you’d get back a random data element if you managed to create a valid insertion name.

Layering issues are particularly problematic because they tend to be data sensitive and highly situational depending on how the various layers interact.  This means that it’s very difficult to design a comprehensive test plan:  The system can act as if it’s nondeterministic, making it infeasible to state with certainty that the various modes of the software have been demonstrated by a test plan.  At best, you can say that it worked for the exact test inputs it was given.  When you do have a problem in production, the multiple technologies in multiple layers can make it particularly hard to debug because it requires a lot of chairs around the table to hit all of the possible players.

Are you decorating?  Or covering up the problem?

Whenever you’re part of a team proposing adding a new layer over an existing system to fix its problems or adapt it to a new situation, you should be suspicious.  Is this really the right path to make the API look right?  Or are you temporarily covering over a problem?  If it’s the latter, it’ll just show through later - and now you have two problems to deal with not one.

There are good occasions to add a new layer:

• To smooth technology upgrades: When you are shifting technologies, say from COM to .NET, you may want to create a custom layer as a new standardized interoperability adapter which will let you separate the upgrade problem into phases and handle them independently.
• To support multiple technologies: Sometimes you need to support multiple types of clients - varying either by environment (say Java and .NET) or major architecture (say Client/Server and Web sites).

And a few suspect ones:

• Mitigate architecture risk: To isolate a new subsystem architecture from the main codebase. We’ve heard this one before - you want to try out something new and iffy, like say Entity Framework.  To contain the risk, you want to introduce a layer between it and the rest of the platform so if it all goes bad you can easily swap it out.
• Impedance Mismatch: You need to interact with something, but just don’t like the way it works. Perhaps it throws around ADO.NET recordsets and you prefer to work with strongly typed objects.

If you find yourself in one of the suspect scenarios, you should seriously question whether the work you’d do to create and validate a layer is really forward progress or just yak shaving.  Before you go down the path, you should seriously estimate:

• Fixing the underlying problems: If the underlying layer(s) aren’t doing what you need, what would it take to get them changed (in the technology they’re currently in) so you could work without adding another layer? That puts the responsibility where it belongs, and keeps complexity under control. Do a full estimate of this approach.
• Make a parallel layer: If you ignore the powerful aversion to creating duplicate routes to the same data, what if you created an alternate path to the underlying information. It may be that you bypass all of the layers or just some of the layers (such as down to the stored procedures that call the database). While this creates duplication, it lets each platform work in their own optimal way and allows for deterministic testing.
• Using the existing layer as it is: It’s easy to overstate the impact of reusing a known system with issues. There’s a natural tendency to not realize that you’re comparing a well understood but flawed system with an unknown solution with unknown problems. Trading known problems for unknown problems makes everyone happy at the start of a project, but creates significant project risk downstream.

Put down the shovel and back away

When you create a new layer on top of existing layers you are often digging your project into trouble, both now and downstream.  In addition to problems with each layer creating a leaky abstraction, deploying and supporting these highly layered systems is extraordinarily challenging.  It becomes prohibitively expensive to make changes in lower layers because of the high chance of unexpected side effects showing up as defects in dependent applications.  More often than not, each layer has to be held static with any changes accommodated by creating new queries or items at each layer to be served in parallel with the older methods.

Before you go ahead, be sure you look at the total lifecycle cost of that decision, including support and maintenance.   Have a good or bad experience with putting up some software wallpaper?  Let us know in the comments!

Everyone likes to be on the winning team.  We love to root for our favorite sports team, we like the car we own and the brand behind it.  So it’s no surprise that when Apple ran their I’m a Mac ads that Windows fans were in an uproar.  Now with the Laptop Hunter series the shoe’s on the other foot.   Microsoft is making a big show that Apple computers are overly expensive just for the Apple brand.  Apple fans claim that  to match a Mac, a PC has to be equipped with tons of antivirus software, a full time tech support guy, and a Witchdoctor on standby to keep it working.

Seriously people

First, Apple makes some of the finest hardware you can possibly buy.  If you compare it nose to nose with hardware that’s actually built to the same standards then it really doesn’t represent a significant price premium.  Compare a Macintosh Pro with an equivalent Dell workstation - the cost is within 5%.  It’s amazing that Apple can afford the extra engineering of an OS with that little premium.  

Second, Vista works great.   It’s running on many more systems than Mac OS is, and with volume comes a range of new problems.  The total amount of money I’ve spent on desktop antivirus software in 10 years of administering PCs?  $0.  The total number of virus problems I’ve had? 0.  My parents managed to get into trouble with one virus and Windows XP - but installing the (free) Microsoft Defender cleared it right up never to return.

As with nearly all marketing, this is a battle of perception:  Apple has done a great job of defending their brand at every turn.  This is part of their corporate ethos.  Along with a few other tenants it ensures they are a much loved but niche player:

• Only do something you can do uniquely well.
• Don’t extend into markets that might ask you to compromise your values.
• Cultivate the mystique:  Don’t show what’s behind the curtains.

Microsoft on the other hand has tenants that ensure they’ll be a volume player, but an unloved one:

• Play to win the most market share in any market you can.
• Build your ecosystem by making it easy for others to add value to it.
• Cultivate the engineers:  Provide overwhelming amounts of documentation and approaches.

The fact is, many people don’t need a top end piece of hardware like a Mac.  On the other hand, many people want a computer that’s just a tool, not a piece of art.  To them, the nearly infinite diversity and low cost of entry are essential.

I’m a People person.  I’m Good with People!

The computing needs of the average corporation and the average individual are very far apart.  To companies, computers are tools - like the desk, phone, and copier.  Very important, very powerful - tools.  They aren’t there to make you feel great or enable you to create a cool video of your vacation in France.  My partner really summed it up one day when he commented that the Mac was a really personal computer - it worked hard to create a personal connection.  

Corporations on the other hand want slow paced evolution, massive support for legacy applications and hardware (these guys are still running dot matrix printers off parallel ports) and to control costs.  They also philosophically want to have all the keys to the computers - just like they do for the buildings and offices they own.  PC’s are just end points on the large mesh that is the corporate IT network.  It’s very impersonal.

Microsoft makes a great deal of money providing businesses with the tools they need to have the computers work for them, and Apple makes a great deal of money creating computers that people love.  Either of these goals would be compromised by trying to do both.

Vista Goggles

Folks that have been in the Windows ecosystem a long time probably recognize that you could take the first year of press about Vista and substitute “Windows 2000″ and find the same article written 8 years earlier.  Vista is a surprisingly large and tricky step forwards on a number of fronts, whereas Windows XP was a visual redress of Windows 2000.  

Almost like an SAT test:

Windows 7 is to Windows Vista as

Windows XP is to Windows 2000.  

Like Windows XP, the story on Windows 7 is making virtually no architecture changes and instead just tuning for the long haul.  That’s a great thing, because there’s a lot that works very well with Vista, and now it’ll work even better with Windows 7.

The humorous thing is to read now about how people are thinking about moving to Vista once 7 ships because, well, they don’t want to move to an OS that was just released.  It’s as if Vista has been aging like a fine cheese on the shelf so the very same binary code that once was toxic is now just what the doctor ordered.  To a slight degree this is true:  Vista SP1 did address some issues that affected some people, and more importantly hardware now is dramatically faster than it was two years ago (as it will be two years from now…) so what once was aggressive is now commonplace.  The same was true of Windows 2000 when it shipped.  Requiring 64MB of RAM?  That’s just crazy talk!  Only certain video cards worked reasonably with it, and video drivers to a while to stabilize.  That sounds very familiar…

In the end, it really comes back to Perception.  Probably the biggest mistake Microsoft did was not push the OEM’s that make the computers to build machines that could responsibly run the new operating system, and be clear that meant hardware 3D video cards and plenty of memory.  And oh yeah, stop putting aftermarket firewalls, antivirus, Google Desktop, and all kinds of other things on them that are ill optimized.  At my last company we got in the habit of routinely wiping each new Dell that came in and reinstalling the OS from the Dell restore CD - because that got rid of all the noise.  It was surprising how much better that worked.  Is that Microsoft’s fault?  Not directly, but they certainly could have found a way to encourage the ecosystem to forgo some profit for usability.  But that’s just not in their corporate DNA.

With any luck, the big story for Windows 7 will be that Microsoft pushes back against their channel, even being willing to risk it by leaving Windows XP out there for folks that don’t want to play by the Windows 7 rules.  It’s hard to put up barriers when you’re a legal monopoly, so find ways to use incentives to do it right instead of punishment for doing it wrong.  And keep up the ads, because perception does matter in the long run.

Who knows, it may push Apple to get better too.  Just once when my iPod updates itself to enhance stability and performance I’d love to know what exactly was unstable or slow…

Since leaving my last company and getting into the wild as a consultant, I’ve been amazed by the divergence between the conventional wisdom prevailing on the Internet and what I see actually happening on the ground with clients.

The prevailing wisdom appears to be:

• Google is the world’s best technology company.  Anything they solve they are the best at, and if you aren’t doing it their way you’re a dinosaur.
• Client / Server is dead.  All new applications will be web applications, most likely delivered as a service.

We visit a lot of companies, both prospects and clients.  Here’s what we’ve actually seen over the past two years:

• Outside of search, Google doesn’t have their act together.  Pretty much everything else is an academic experiment.  There’s nothing wrong with experiments, but there’s a big distance from there to running your business.
• Business are run on Client / Server.  They’re still creating new apps this way - they may use newer technologies like WPF to do it, but if it is core to making the business work, it’s usually not a web app.

With a name like Google, it’s got to be good!

Our own internal experience mirrors this.  We use Exchange and Outlook for email so I can’t say a lot directly about Gmail, however it’s clear from Google’s reactions to recent outages that their perspective doesn’t fit the enterprise because it doesn’t take into account the premium companies place on predictability and communication.  Predictability meaning that things are consistent - you get a consistent experience so your users can get their jobs done.  Businesses are change averse for good reason:  Users will adapt even to crazy problems and discover the patterns that work to get their jobs done.  When the patterns keep changing, they get frustrated.  On the communication front, businesses prize feedback on knowing the true scope of a problem and how long it may take to get it resolved.  

SalesForce learned this a few years ago and in response introduced Trust.Salesforce.Com, which went a long way to getting companies what they wanted to be comfortable with an outsourced critical solution.   If you operate a SaaS, you would do well to model after this.   Now, it isn’t necessarily bad that Google doesn’t do anything like this for Gmail - it just means it isn’t a solution for a large set of businesses.  

The thing we use the most internally from Google is Google Analytics.  It’s very pretty and easy to use, however we’ve noticed a lot of “what’s broken today?” experiences with it, enough that we can’t recommend it to anyone.  Two of the sites we monitor appear to be chronically under counted by Google Analytics, and we can’t figure out why.  And like most things Google - you’re on self support.  Now, there are paid options however unlike email we haven’t been able to find a strong paid competitor that is actively competing with Google.  It feels like most have left the field of battle, or are exorbitantly expensive (and aimed at large enterprises).

After much early on talk about how Google Docs was going to make Office obsolete, it simply hasn’t come to pass - and Microsoft continues to sell a lot of copies of Office.  It turns out that making a great word processor and spreadsheet is a very hard problem to do through the web.  Now, you might take the perspective that Microsoft’s announcement that they are going to offer lightweight web versions of Office 14 applications as being an admission that the old model is bankrupt, but it really points to an increase in reach:  Reaching many users that wouldn’t have been purchasing the product before.  Casual home users that wouldn’t purchase a “real” copy of office may find what they want in Google Docs, and would also be happy with a lightweight feature set of Office.

In Google’s defense, the products are worth what you’re paying for them:  Free.  But, you have to ask yourself:  If it wasn’t for the Google brand, would you give them the time of day?  For search, absolutely.  Finding an address and getting a street view?  Bring it on.  But don’t feel bad for depending on traditional software next time you want to buy a copy of Office, Photoshop, or use Outlook for your email.

It’s all SaaS These Days

Make no mistake, web applications, SaaS and Cloud Computing are all here to stay.  However, that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot going on in Client \ Server as well.  The key question to consider is how many applications you would have made, but done in another technology are being built as a web app instead?  There certainly are some, but for the most part web applications are creating entirely new spaces and solving problems that weren’t being solved before instead of replacing entrenched problems.  

Take document management:  On the surface this feels like a problem that should go entirely web and not look back because the web is very good when the readers to editors ratio is very high.  That said, the big document management companies still have very robust, integrated traditional offerings as well as their web portals.  You do have people using web document management solutions (like SharePoint) that never had document management before, which is a case of expanding the size of the market not replacing an alternative option.

When you are running your business, you have a set of requirements that are often best suited by a traditional client application:

• Users need advanced capabilities:  Once you stray out of the basics, it is invariably harder to provide features through web technologies than traditional technologies.  Tools are improving and making it better, but the cost per feature is lower in a modern client development environment than through a browser.  This is particularly true since you can put a browser in your app to enable things that it does really well - like show HTML content - you just let it do and keep the tricky stuff - like that big set of coordinated data entry fields - in your traditional app.
• Users are doing a lot:  One thing that is easy to lose perspective on is that when you run a client/server application every computer is bringing power to the party.  You often don’t need that strong a central server because the real action is happening out on the clients, and every new client that logs in is bringing their own muscle with them.  In the web, it’s all on the server. Not only that, but you’re rendering things in a less efficient way due to the stateless nature and limited protocols available for data exchange.
• Users need access to diverse data:  With web technologies it’s straightforward to manage information once you’ve brought it into the cloud, but it’s tricky to provide end users with fast casual access to a range of data in a range of formats.  In many businesses data is coming in pieces from many sources and being assembled to produce a coherent output.  This isn’t easy to do in any environment, and it’s one thing that the modern PC operating system, particularly Windows, has gotten very good at.  You can double click a file and almost always get it to open into a good viewer.  You can preview files, drag and drop from one program into another or a file into a program.  All of this is intuitive and fast for users that aren’t fitting into a pre-packaged user scenario.  

There are counter balancing effects:

• Transient user community:  The more far flung your people are, the more work it is to keep them up to date.  The more transient that user community is, the higher a barrier installation is.  This is the leading reason why you want to make something a web app:  It just isn’t worth the deployment effort to do it any other way.
• Diverse user community:  If you want to service Linux, Windows, and the Mac then web technologies are the lowest common denominator, it’s just the way it is.

What we’re seeing in the field fits into this:  People are creating a lot of new, lightweight web apps to solve point problems they probably wouldn’t have solved through technology before.  But they’re also still heavily investing in traditional applications.  

As a development team, it’s easy to get caught up thinking that Effort is the same as Value - just because something was a lot of work it must have a commensurate value.  The fact is, that there’s just no evidence that effort and value are correlated.  On the web, if you want to create a great looking and functioning generalized tool you’re signing up for a lot of effort.  And the value may be there - it could be that you’re going to reach a whole set of new users that otherwise wouldn’t use an application at all.  On the other hand, it could be that users perceive no extra value for it being in the web so all the extra work you put into creating the graphics, testing in five browsers, establishing identity, and the dozen other things you wouldn’t have needed to worry about if you were just running on the desktop netted you nothing.

So if you’re a business wondering how to approach that next application you need, don’t be afraid to get one that isn’t all wrapped up in Web 2.0 goodness.  In the end, it’s all about making the solution work for you and your users.

If you spent several hours some afternoon researching on the web what technology is the best for your next project, you’d probably come to the following conclusions:  Linux is the best, or perhaps the Macintosh…  Of course everything can be written in PHP or Ruby on Rails.  If you’re feeling very stuffy, you might be old fashioned and use Java or .NET, Windows or any flavor of Unix that isn’t Linux.  For your database you should just store everything as XML files, but if you feel compelled to have a database use MySQL.  But if you’re still a slave to the 1990’s then you might decide to keep using the corporate dinosaur- Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server.  In the end, the only constant is that whatever you’ve used in the past is certainly out of fashion and certainly a slow, archaic approach to solving problems.

Nearly all teams work within a relatively closed ecosystem - the technologies and people represent only a minor subset of all technologies available today.  Even within these small groups the number of choices at every level are daunting.  Even if you’ve selected your OS, language, framework, and database - what architecture model are you going to use?  What is your data access and caching strategy?  At each turn you’ll want to pick the best option but have a flood of choices to select from.  Many people can tell you about how they led a project that used any particular technology and it worked like a champ with no drawbacks.  On the surface it makes it possible to defend just about any new technology as the way to get your next project done.

What is very hard to find is a real comparative analysis that highlights in comparable situations the results with different technologies.  It’s not a surprise this is so - such analysis is very expensive and time consuming, and few companies would try to solve the same exact problem using competing technologies because it’s not the business they’re in.

Where does this leave you?  What technology should you use on the next project?  Most likely, you’ll have the best success with an incremental improvement on the technologies you already have in your toolkit.  Why?

Infinite Solutions in Infinite Diversity

Most conversations in technology on the web are exclusive - they advocate X over Y or Y over X.  The truth is much more that X or Y can both solve the problem but do it in different ways and with different levels of effort for a team starting from scratch.  What’s much more useful is to ask why you can’t solve the problem effectively with the tools and technologies that are a natural fit for your environment.  Even if a new technology may be the easiest way to solve the specific problem you’re looking at it may not be the best choice when you consider everything that goes into creating the entire software system and maintaining it over time.

When confronted with a strong advocate for a technology shift, keep the conversation focused on the benefits of shifting away from the natural or familiar selections for your organization.

New Methods are Expensive

When you introduce new technologies or tools there is always a short term hit.  Most respected research indicates that even technologies and tools that have a substantial improvement in effectiveness are at best neutral on the first project that uses them.  The most successful technologies and tools are ones that are evolutions of things your team already knows.  The more divergent it is from that, the more time it will take to get over the learning curve, establish best practices, and generally become effective.

Known Problems vs. Unknown Problems

A common challenge when comparing a new technology against existing methods is not recognizing that while you know of all of the problems with your existing technologies, you don’t know of the problems with the new ones.  This can lead to a comparison that shows a number of critical problems with the current technology, and none on the new technology.  It isn’t that there aren’t problems with the new technology, it’s that you don’t know what they are yet. Whenever you put in a new technology, no matter how promising it is, it is going to have new, unexpected problems.

What’s worse is that your organization most likely has workarounds for every problem you’ve encountered, so they don’t really have the impact of a new problem.  Your development team may not know about them, but talk to the operations staff, support staff, and your users before you assume that a technology problem that worries you really is at the top of their list.  It may be that the big memory leak in a third-party library that has you wanting to rewrite a subsystem is conquered in production by having a script reset the service every night.

Existing Code and Libraries

It’s very easy to underestimate the value of existing libraries and practices in effectively solving problems.  When faced with a new assignment, your developers can draw from a large pool of existing, tested solutions to a range of the more mundane, plumbing aspects of the solution.  This includes storing user information, reliably working with data storage, security systems, and other functional requirements that aren’t unique to the problem at hand.  These software libraries accrue over time as developers face similar problems even in development shops that don’t place a high emphasis on modularity and reusability - as long as you have source code control and developers that aren’t paid by the line of code, they’ll naturally find ways to adapt and remold things they’ve already done to fit new needs.

When you have a major technology shift, losing the use of this common body of code will require the first project to reinvent it.  On the surface this may seem straightforward but it’s usually held up by a desire to understand exactly how to best accomplish the same common tasks in the new environment.  For example, you might have written your own security system for your previous environment which you’ll then need to either re-implement or drop in favor of a built-in capability of the new environment you’re targeting.  What’s worse is you need to make these critical decisions at the time when you have the least experience with the new environment:  Is its built in security system really sufficient for your needs?  What about logging?

Your Customers Don’t Care

With the exception of a narrow range of situations (such as developer tools), your customers really don’t care what technology you use to implement your solution.  After all, they’re buying your solution not the technology you wrote it in.  Even if the IT representative of the evaluation team in a potential customer objects because your entire solution is written in a technology they don’t like, in the end they are often overruled unless they can point to a practical implication that you can’t mitigate.  For example, you may get overruled because it’s a Unix shop and they won’t accept a solution that only runs on Windows.  Even in the most extreme cases, if you provide enough customer value it will conquer any customer technology objection.  If the prospect has no Windows servers, that translates into a finite cost for them to support a unique system in their environment.  If your value well exceeds that, then it isn’t the key challenge to crossing the chasm to that prospect.

We often hear developers discussing internals of software development and giving them the weight of user requirements.  If it isn’t visible to the customer, it isn’t a requirement. In the end, your customers don’t pay you to have a beautiful object model.  They don’t care how hard it is for you to create your product or what hoops you have to run through.  For them, it’s a cash for capabilities decision.  It may be true that doggedly sticking with an old technology will mean you can deliver fewer features with each release, or you won’t be able to run on the latest operating system but in the eyes of your customers the question is still how compelling the functionality is and whether you can run on the operating systems they use.

Ignore the Pundits

If you’re part of a shop that has a track record of producing results, be proud.  Don’t worry about what is all the rage at producing the next social networking site, focus on what is effective for you.  For projects that can afford the risk, take the opportunity to incrementally improve your technologies and methods:  Try out a new version of the development framework or new capabilities of the latest database version.  Just remember, you can always tell the pioneers:  They’re the ones lying on the ground with the arrows sticking out of their backs.  Unless you’re part of a dedicated research team, most often you’ll get the best results by waiting for the first round of adopters to figure out what did and didn’t pan out with the newest release and then benefit from that experience.  There’s no satisfaction in burning six months working out the kinks of version 1.0 just to have everything addressed in version 1.1 published a month later.

What’s Your Experience?

Have a great story about being the pioneer, working a project that was packed to the gills with the latest and greatest, only to fall on its face?  Or perhaps you found raging success completly severing your ties with the past?  Drop me a line or leave a comment about it.