|
|
article
page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
funded and larger sales and marketing organizations. Self-* companies, mostly startups, frequently fumble in this area – no one yet knows how to frame the successful marketing pitch for self-*. But, additionally, the reality is that negative market forces have come to dominate the IT market. Disinformation is being disseminated and spin predominates over fact. The truth is that spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) works; It works to prolong the status quo against novel and more efficient methods. Today’s market is choked with misinformation on Self-* products leading purchaser into FUD.
|
|
|
As we mentioned last month, there are many current public efforts. Here is how they characterize the work of defining autonomic communications. |
|
|
want to embrace change. New approaches are hard to grasp – the classic paradigm change problem. While these paradigm changes occur [database centric systems, structured programming, objected-oriented design, application servers, web-centric applications, services/SOA/SaaS], the adoption is slow. Christenson has shown that,
|
|
|
|
While the Long tail effect is changing the market for consumer goods, it does not seem to play a role in IT. Vested vendors, who are already listed partners by procurement, have an interest in keeping things as they are. Big vendor corporations with mature products want to keep their market dominance. So every time a self-* company claims to better meet the core business needs (for example: reliability, agile, survivable, significantly cost reducing), the established companies claim their software already does this. In fact it is their marketing departments copying self-* arguments and claiming unwarranted product properties, and not the development groups of these companies copying facility. So management is beset by everyone claiming to be, for instance, agile, and the value of “agile” is depreciated. This is a successful block to the introduction or real new features for software and a barrier for entry of new paradigms of computing.
But there are barriers even deeper in the corporation. Many developers and designers have desires to keep things as they are. The designer gains reputation for creating a structure to solve a problem; the developer gains reputation for completing a working software artifact or network device. If the designer is told his approach is wrong, if the developer must be trained in a new approach – losing productivity and status, neither will
|
|
in order to flip this core community toward new solutions, executives must go to significant lengths to foster a culture of change, among them targeting incentives to real business needs.
Paremus CEO and Founder, Richard Nicholson:
“Whilst the technology industry is well versed with the robust, agile, cost effect marketing messages that must be associated with each and every product launch or new Industry trend, the reality is that the industry has collectively failed to deliver these benefits. Unnecessary environmental complexity has flourished. Paremus believes that a fundamental part of the problem is that the IT industry does not understand how to architect the type of adaptive distributed system demand by modern business. The irony is that such systems are common place and surround us. Biological, political, and social systems all can be classified as "Complex Adaptive Systems" (CAS). Such systems are highly adaptive, extremely robust to component failure, and extremely efficient. The characteristics of CAS systems, including hierarchical dynamic assembly and population self-control (Stigmergy) are well understood, and provide the architectural blue-prints for the next generation of distributed software system.”
|
article
page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|
|
