Yes and Amen.
Its like I’ve been to some Technologists Annonymous meeting and realized I had a problem.
“Hi, my name is Vince and I work in technology. Its worse than that, I work in enterprise technolgy”
I look around the room, even the hardened ones cringe, but in response I hear “Hi Vince” in unison.
I go on.
“Well, it started off when I was hired to implement software….”
And then I go on to discuss how I looked on as if it was absolute normalcy when I began to add consultant-speak to my every day langage. Items like “outside-in” and “get a 360-degree view.” Yes, I even go into where I’ve become a cross-platform (PC and Mac) PowerPoint guru.“I first started to sense that I hit rock bottom when I started talking in web-page address-speak.”
” ‘Oh the URL (I actually said it so it sounded like “You” “Are” “Elle) is www.xxx.xxxx slash xxx dot H-T-M-L dot ASP.’ I actually heard it on a recording of a WebEx (another forced addiction) session I ran.”
I digress….
However it is just that I’ve started to realize that the vocabulary and worldview in big technology (especially those of us non-programmers who know enough to vapor-ware up a software specification to a developer) is so limited as to leave us nothing to do but rehash frameworks “thought up” by Dun and Bradstreet Software in the 1980s and 1990s.
Maybe I’m not getting it out right but we use words that were meant to describe flesh and bone experiences to describe the breadth or depth of a software’s effectivity (I almost said “solution”). In other words, “our solution is much more robust…” It means nothing. But say it in a presentaion or better yet have it as a bullet on your powerpoint (AKA crack for the business ADD set) and the room will nod in robotic assent.
Deep down the presenter knows no one knows what the $##$##@ you are saying
But hey, its not a conference call and there are bagels…
I used to not worry for all of us — the programmers and developers going after startups, there are a group of mavericks I thought. Nope.
They are worse, they are mult-dependent patients. Venture Capital and Big Tech. Shelve the Big Tech for a minute (most if it is but no one wants to admit it), these people are either “chasing the ghost” looking for that elusive first (or next) round of capital or are running low on their last roun and for some reason looking back to the VC instead of in the face of thier customers (who oddly enough will put them in far more control of their lives).
However in the classic “i love you, now go away” dysfunctional reationship scheme, the VC will ineveitably (if you do not or cannot deliver within their fund window) dump you when you need the money the most. Now if you’re “chasing the ghost” or running out, the panic sets in. The reality is that most of the time you could have been selling, you spent getting into the VC network to get funding and doing pitch after pitch.
Now to be fair, I’ve never done a pitch (per se formally) but I’ve danced the perimiter and prepped some people and sat with a lot of VCs and successful pitch makers and, well, all that energy (for some of them) could be better focused on generating revenue.
So back to my question, “can technoogy innovation stifle innovation?” my yes is so resounding because I see people stuck in tired frameworks, chasing funding over customers, and in all of their faces THEY THINK THIS CRAP IS PERFECTLY NORMAL.
This makes me tired but I think I am onto something.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem
Gnite
