November 7, 2016 at 8:45 am
A lot of junior or intermediate developers have such a drive to learn that they often try and push to do the "latest and greatest". I was no different. I don't think that it is their fault. It is the responsibility of their seniors to mentor and guide them without diminishing their enthusiasm.
The real trouble occurs when management start directing those enthusiastic junior/intermediate developers directly thus breaking the chain of command. By taking a link out of that chain you are effectively breaking it. Bad choice.
Fortunately for me I grew up and wouldn't allow those who are under my wind to rule the roost like at times I felt that I did. Yes, it is important that their voices are heard and their suggestions considered seriously. Conversely, it is our responsibility as leaders to explain when their option is not better and why (and vice versa).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 7, 2016 at 9:20 am
xsevensinzx (11/7/2016)
This is sort of the thinking that turns away new ideas.
It's actually not. Go back and read what I wrote. I usually give every idea the chance to succeed. It would be stupid to do otherwise. Just don't try to play the card of "we need it right now to meet schedule". Deploying any new technology (even if it's old technology such as partitioned tables) without knowing all of the ramifications is equally stupid.
When it comes to things like the nonsense of creating an SQLCLR to do a modulo in SQL, I'm not giving that a chance at all. Something like that is based on a total lack of knowledge by the "developer" and I try to use such instances to teach the right way, if given the chance.
And saying "NO" to spending $350K to find out that 99% of the work done by a shinny new bobble has to be done using T-SQL anyway isn't suppressing any kind of innovation... is suppressing the unnecessary expenditure of funds for something stupid. 🙂
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2016 at 9:23 am
I try to have an open mind when it comes to learning new things. After 20+ years in IT I've needed to, learning different technologies, different companies, even different industries. I think some distinction needs to be made though between learning something new because it helps you be more productive or do something you couldn't do before, versus learning something new because it's the latest hottest thing.
I've seen a number of technological fads come and go. I've also seen technologies that were the "next big thing" that did carve out a small niche and are still around but never lived up to the hype generated about them. So while I do always continue to learn new things, I find myself going back to the questions Does this make me more productive? Does this let me do something I couldn't do before?
November 7, 2016 at 9:33 am
Jeff Moden (11/7/2016)
Andrew..Peterson (11/7/2016)
Jeff Moden (11/6/2016)
To be honest, I'm starting to get really pissed off at people and their "new improved shinny bobbles". .........Very true. I am sure that it is no surprise that IMHO, this all comes down to management. Some mgmt.s need to have "...the latest...", or "...best of breed...", etc. Even if/when they have no idea about it.
Good management focuses on the goals and objectives. "...shiny new..." tech toys are rarely part of the goal.
That certainly happens, especially if management feels that it's their job to do such a thing.
The problem I've experienced the most is that management frequently knows squat about what can be/should be done and are sold a bill of goods by folks equally uninformed. It's a pretty large part of the reason why many DBAs have been labeled as naysayers and "sticks in mud". There are many of them and, frequently, just one or two DBAs.
Then there's that stupid mantra of "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" and stupid analogies like "To a hammer, everything is a nail". Heh... my response is "When you're trying to drive a nail, why not use a hammer... like the one we already have in the tool box"?
The trend, sadly, has been for the "talker's" to get into management. And since as you stated "... frequently knows squat about what can be/should be done ..." they need to be "sold" on a solution.
Successful companies do not wait to be sold. They discover the solution - just as you have outlined in your past work.
The more you are prepared, the less you need it.
November 7, 2016 at 9:33 am
Eric M Russell (11/7/2016)
The smarter managers, the ones who have a track record of delivering and cultivating the best teams, they have a basic mistrust of employees who act like a know-it-all.In the past, I've seen folks who could talk authoritatively about any topic, always wanting to establish a position within the team as the perceived expert, but at the end of the day they simply couldn't code their way out of a paper sack, and when the server is down, they quietly slip away to the bathroom stall and hide until the storm blows over. :ermm:
Oooo.... spot on. The only thing that's worse is when said individuals continue their façade during the crisis leading to further problems.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 7, 2016 at 10:16 am
Jeff Moden (11/7/2016)
...The only thing that's worse is when said individuals continue their façade during the crisis leading to further problems.
Sad and unnecessarily painful memories dragged up by that statement.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 7, 2016 at 2:00 pm
I had a boss who loved “shiny for shiny’s sake”. This boss was not an evil doer (actually one of the best managers I ever had) but this person felt compelled to be able to say the company was using the latest and greatest because they strongly desired to be perceived as an industry leader within their vertical.
I left that company and went to work for their largest software vendor. Since then, my former boss has decided that our software is no longer “shiny enough”and they are moving to a competitor. The shiny new software will cost them around $2.5 million to implement PLUS they will lose all the customization we did for their processes plus we’re about to implement a brand new shiny interface. Then there is the fact that no matter what vendor you choose, you’re going to have issues.
Shiny can be expensive in a lot of ways
November 7, 2016 at 2:24 pm
The problem with the new "shiny bobbles" is that no-one really knows how to use them except the people who wrote them and those people aren't necessarily the ones who are trying to sell it.
The question you have to ask is "what problem that I have is best solved by this thing"?
In the case of Hadoop the question is "how can I process vast quantities of data that is the equivalent of brown coal in a cost effective manner"?
At it's heart Hadoop is a distributed file system and map reduce framework with a resource governor in the middle.
Flume is an Apache project to stream web server logs onto that distributed file system.
Hive puts a SQL layer over the top of yhat data and PIG is a macro language to help with ETL loads.
If you don't have vast quantities of data you don't need it. Web server logs can be vast but contain very little data of worth. I certainly wouldn't squander SQL Server and a SAN on low grade high volume stuff. Pearls before swine.
To be honest I think businesses need to think carefully about cost vs benefit. A shiny web analytics package may be more expensive than the upfront price of a hadoop cluster but it can release value early and end up costing a lot less than the eventual cost of Hadoop.
Then there are hype cycles. Most of us will be familiar with the Gartner hype cycle. But there is also the CEO hype cycle aifed and abetted by unscrupulous media.
The way it works is this.
A tech white paper is published with some interesting ideas.
The business press then publish an article saying that any business not investing in technology X will be out of business in 5 years.
The board demand to know what the CEOs strategy is regarding technology X
The CEO having read increasingly alarming headlines demands a technology X project.
IT try to implement the new inflatable dartboard tech and fail. As do most companies who try it.
Staff turnover goes up and a !idfle manager or two is scapegoated.
The press then publish articles lambasting CEOs for burning money on what was obviously premature tech.
The lesson here is that the modern press exist to flog articles, not to inform, educate and entertain. They love a flawed hero. They can flog articles building them up, they can flog articles tearing them down. Selling the same thing twice to the gullible and those with the attention span of a fruit fly.
Quite a bit of the shiny bobbles is perfectly OK when used for the purpose for which it was designed. It's just that it rarely is used for that. A toxic combination of architectural decrees from the penthouse of the ivory tower, cocaine fueled marketing hype and an unscrupulous media ensures that the tech gets in rammed in hard from USS PowerPoint where everything works hunky dory
November 7, 2016 at 2:39 pm
jshahan (11/7/2016)
I had a boss who loved “shiny for shiny’s sake”. This boss was not an evil doer (actually one of the best managers I ever had) but this person felt compelled to be able to say the company was using the latest and greatest because they strongly desired to be perceived as an industry leader within their vertical.I left that company and went to work for their largest software vendor. Since then, my former boss has decided that our software is no longer “shiny enough”and they are moving to a competitor. The shiny new software will cost them around $2.5 million to implement PLUS they will lose all the customization we did for their processes plus we’re about to implement a brand new shiny interface. Then there is the fact that no matter what vendor you choose, you’re going to have issues.
Shiny can be expensive in a lot of ways
It sounds like your former employer could use a shiny new IT boss. It makes me wonder what will happen with your former co-workers who are now bored maintaining another company's 3rd party solution or who themselves are deemed as too expensive to maintain on payroll.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
November 7, 2016 at 2:50 pm
Eric M Russell (11/7/2016)
jshahan (11/7/2016)
I had a boss who loved “shiny for shiny’s sake”. This boss was not an evil doer (actually one of the best managers I ever had) but this person felt compelled to be able to say the company was using the latest and greatest because they strongly desired to be perceived as an industry leader within their vertical.I left that company and went to work for their largest software vendor. Since then, my former boss has decided that our software is no longer “shiny enough”and they are moving to a competitor. The shiny new software will cost them around $2.5 million to implement PLUS they will lose all the customization we did for their processes plus we’re about to implement a brand new shiny interface. Then there is the fact that no matter what vendor you choose, you’re going to have issues.
Shiny can be expensive in a lot of ways
It sounds like your former employer could use a shiny new IT boss. It makes me wonder what will happen with your former co-workers who are now bored maintaining another company's 3rd party solution or who themselves are deemed as too expensive to maintain on payroll.
Some of the co-workers are still there. Most have moved on. Those that remained do have a tough row to hoe...
November 7, 2016 at 2:55 pm
Jeff Moden (11/7/2016)
xsevensinzx (11/7/2016)
This is sort of the thinking that turns away new ideas.It's actually not. Go back and read what I wrote. I usually give every idea the chance to succeed. It would be stupid to do otherwise. Just don't try to play the card of "we need it right now to meet schedule". Deploying any new technology (even if it's old technology such as partitioned tables) without knowing all of the ramifications is equally stupid.
When it comes to things like the nonsense of creating an SQLCLR to do a modulo in SQL, I'm not giving that a chance at all. Something like that is based on a total lack of knowledge by the "developer" and I try to use such instances to teach the right way, if given the chance.
And saying "NO" to spending $350K to find out that 99% of the work done by a shinny new bobble has to be done using T-SQL anyway isn't suppressing any kind of innovation... is suppressing the unnecessary expenditure of funds for something stupid. 🙂
I hear that, but you're talking about ideas for new technology that clearly are not any better than what you have. It's not the right tool for the job. Those are no brainers. You're giving good examples of when something can already be solved by SQL Server. Having people tell you, "Just because SQL Server can do it, doesn't mean it should" does not really apply unless there is a reason. If that reason is not turning you to a believer, then you're purely talking about all the wrong tech for the job, not exactly new tech that is the right tool for the job.
What happens if someone tells you that you can do something cheaper and equally the same as SQL Server with another piece of tech? It's equally the performance, but cheaper on the resources (i.e.: time to develop for example)? What most of us face is the fact that SQL Server can still do the job. It can do a lot actually regardless of the age. But, SQL Server is also expensive in a few areas. The issue is getting people to come off old tech that can still do the job for something new that can maybe do it better in certain areas like for this example, resources. We still face the same old uphill battle of getting people to swing in a new direction from existing sometimes dated tech that is still costing us more in keeping it.
November 7, 2016 at 3:40 pm
jshahan (11/7/2016)
Eric M Russell (11/7/2016)
jshahan (11/7/2016)
I had a boss who loved “shiny for shiny’s sake”. This boss was not an evil doer (actually one of the best managers I ever had) but this person felt compelled to be able to say the company was using the latest and greatest because they strongly desired to be perceived as an industry leader within their vertical.I left that company and went to work for their largest software vendor. Since then, my former boss has decided that our software is no longer “shiny enough”and they are moving to a competitor. The shiny new software will cost them around $2.5 million to implement PLUS they will lose all the customization we did for their processes plus we’re about to implement a brand new shiny interface. Then there is the fact that no matter what vendor you choose, you’re going to have issues.
Shiny can be expensive in a lot of ways
It sounds like your former employer could use a shiny new IT boss. It makes me wonder what will happen with your former co-workers who are now bored maintaining another company's 3rd party solution or who themselves are deemed as too expensive to maintain on payroll.
Some of the co-workers are still there. Most have moved on. Those that remained do have a tough row to hoe...
I'll bet you guys learned a lot, and it was probably fun while it lasted. Some of these startup companies do go on to produce some shiny former employees, even if the product or business model itself is lack luster.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
November 7, 2016 at 8:39 pm
xsevensinzx (11/7/2016)
What happens if someone tells you that you can do something cheaper and equally the same as SQL Server with another piece of tech? It's equally the performance, but cheaper on the resources (i.e.: time to develop for example)? What most of us face is the fact that SQL Server can still do the job. It can do a lot actually regardless of the age. But, SQL Server is also expensive in a few areas. The issue is getting people to come off old tech that can still do the job for something new that can maybe do it better in certain areas like for this example, resources. We still face the same old uphill battle of getting people to swing in a new direction from existing sometimes dated tech that is still costing us more in keeping it.
Excellent questions! Thank you for the comeback.
I'm actually going through the very thing you speak of right now.
As a bit of background, when I first got to my current company, code promotions were akin to herding cats, code format and embedded documentation ranged from not existent to resembling hash marks in underwear, performance made serious flushing sounds (multiple 10 minute "outages" due to blocking every day and deadlocks were at crazy levels), and everything was totally unauditable. Most of the cowboys that put that mess together had left the company and a few of the good ones were still on board. I talked with them and told them we could fix it and we did. The auditors love us and the code has come a long way from the original mess it was in. The system of review, test, and deployment that I had put together along with their help and management buy in worked incredibly well. Test failure and rework was at nearly 0 and production failures became unheard of.
Now, one of the big guns at work wants to change to a totally different system of doing things. He claims that parts of his system have worked well for his team and want's our team to use the same system. It does have the advantage of possibly preventing accidental overwrites when the two teams are working on, say, the same stored procedure at the same time. I've seen the code and the performance from this other team and a huge amount of it fails in many of the same areas as when I first came on board. Because of that, I'm thinking that their system sucks. Worse yet, he wanted to stand up another machine to handle the review and promotion process.
At that point, I cringed and developed an involuntary twitch. 😛
Then, he explains how his plan will help both teams, how he envisions it working and, knowing how busy I am, how he'll setup and do the next big release (which I normally do) as part of the shakedown-cruise as well as take the time to document things so that I don't have to and then teach me how it all works. The fact that he actually has taken the time to lay out a plan goes a long way with me and... the plan actually sounds pretty good.
I'm still skeptical that it will do all the things he says it will but, as he continues to develop the system, he's kept me in the loop and when he's run into a problem, has asked me what my opinion is.
Even though I'm skeptical as to how this will cut the time for development, review, testing, and deployment, how can I say no to such an attempt? I'd be stupid to not allow or support the attempt. The only thing that it's costing is the setup of a VM and his time. If it works, we all win because both teams will have a better way. If it doesn't work, then we'll both know but we will have tried.
This isn't like the other scenarios where I've proven that the existing tools are the best tools for the job. This is something truly new to the company and the person pushing it has actually done due diligence and the correct amount of research to be given a shot at it. Further and since it is new, if there's a problem, I'll gladly assist to see if it can be resolved or try to find a work around that doesn't require someone to stand on their head while using the new system.
Ok... now, do you remember this?
xsevensinzx (11/7/2016)
This is sort of the thinking that turns away new ideas.
And I said ...
It's actually not. Go back and read what I wrote. I usually give every idea the chance to succeed. It would be stupid to do otherwise.
... let me make a believer in you of what I said. This guy is the same person that keeps telling me that "Just because you can do something in SQL, doesn't mean you should" and "To a hammer, everything is a nail", and caused the company to spend $350K on a system that could have easily and much less expensively been done with SQL Server. I don't let ownership, emotions, or personal prejudice get in the way of good ideas even if the other person can't do the same. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 8, 2016 at 8:59 am
David.Poole (11/7/2016)
The problem with the new "shiny bobbles" is that no-one really knows how to use them except the people who wrote them and those people aren't necessarily the ones who are trying to sell it.....
Then there are hype cycles. Most of us will be familiar with the Gartner hype cycle. But there is also the CEO hype cycle aifed and abetted by unscrupulous media.
The way it works is this.
A tech white paper is published with some interesting ideas.
The business press then publish an article saying that any business not investing in technology X will be out of business in 5 years.
The board demand to know what the CEOs strategy is regarding technology X
The CEO having read increasingly alarming headlines demands a technology X project.
IT try to implement the new inflatable dartboard tech and fail. As do most companies who try it.
Staff turnover goes up and a !idfle manager or two is scapegoated.
The press then publish articles lambasting CEOs for burning money on what was obviously premature tech.
The lesson here is that the modern press exist to flog articles, not to inform, educate and entertain. They love a flawed hero. They can flog articles building them up, they can flog articles tearing them down. Selling the same thing twice to the gullible and those with the attention span of a fruit fly.
...
This is a bit of a tangent, but I had to respond to the mention of Gartner. Before I came to my current job all I knew about Gartner is that Gartner would appear in the by-line of some articles I'd read online at websites, blogs, etc. that I frequent for tech news. But boy, where I work now Gartner just about speaks the words of God. I've learned whole new terms like Gartner's "Magic Quadrant". WOW, does that have a powerful effect! Gartner's Magic Quadrant to upper level managers is like catnip to cats. But I see it both ways, too. I believe companies eagerly desire to be in that Magic Quadrant. I don't know what to think, sometimes. I suppose this "Magic Quadrant" stuff has its place, but I tend to think its taken more seriously than it should be.
Kindest Regards, Rod Connect with me on LinkedIn.
November 8, 2016 at 9:51 am
Rod at work (11/8/2016)
This is a bit of a tangent, but I had to respond to the mention of Gartner. Before I came to my current job all I knew about Gartner is that Gartner would appear in the by-line of some articles I'd read online at websites, blogs, etc. that I frequent for tech news. But boy, where I work now Gartner just about speaks the words of God. I've learned whole new terms like Gartner's "Magic Quadrant". WOW, does that have a powerful effect! Gartner's Magic Quadrant to upper level managers is like catnip to cats. But I see it both ways, too. I believe companies eagerly desire to be in that Magic Quadrant. I don't know what to think, sometimes. I suppose this "Magic Quadrant" stuff has its place, but I tend to think its taken more seriously than it should be.
In general Gartner represents a reasonable direction of travel but like the proverbial lamp post it should be used for illumination rather than support.
There are one or two Gartner..ish information companies around and one vendor I spoke to joked about making sure he took the company rep to the correct restaurant to ensure they got a positive write up. Cynical but with a grain of truth.
If I want to buy a car the chances are I know someone who has the one I'm interested in and there are certainly trade and consumer publications that will tell me all sorts of things about that car.
If I am a CTO in the market for new technology solution 'x' who have I got that I can ask? It tends to be my competitors who aren't going to reveal much or marketecture presentations. Hence the Gartner/Neilson or whatever comfort blanket
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 46 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply