Comments on: When did Enterprise Software Development become a commodity?

By: Mario

Mario — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:57:38 +0000

Corporations are structured on purpose to make everyone in it a replaceable cog. They like to think like that about highly creative and almost always unmeasurable activities as software development. I guess it comforts them to think that way, and to pigeon whole their creators.

And this is probably what they seek as well when they externalize their project. I would really hope that both the corporation and the bidders know that what each actually wants out of this transaction is quite different than what is discussed and signed off on initially. This is almost a law in software development. Neither side doesn’t really know what they want, until the project is done.

By: Marcelo Lopez Jr

Marcelo Lopez Jr — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:04:13 +0000

Sorry…trackback is wrong in my post. http://thegreenpill.wordpress.com

By: Marcelo Lopez Jr

Marcelo Lopez Jr — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:02:53 +0000

Eric,

This is no different than when companies are trying to hire employees, ask apriori what salary range a particular “candidate” is expecting to receive in compensation, except of course, that none of the “candidates” have the privilege of seeing who their competition is.

It’s not like most folks who’ve been in the business a while don’t know what the “going rate” in their locale is for a particular skillset, yet companies persist in this practice because, as you say, most often, the practice isn’t to necessarily hire the most qualified, but the most “cost effective”. I’m not convinced it’s a matter of reputation that has to improve in the executive boardroom. It’s the entire mindset about what IT ( Software Development, Hardware Services, Infrastructure Engineering, etc. ) actually MEANS to an enterprise. So long as it’s solely seen as a “means to an end”, and not as part of the actual assets of a company that need to be strengthened and preserved, it will continue to be marginalized and as you’ve very poignantly pointed out, marginalized.

There are a TON of bits and pieces, in my opinion that feed that continual erosion of the value add of IT, overall, and it isn’t just concentrated to the boardroom mindset, though obviously, that’s where it trickles down from, throughout the enterprise.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:46:18 +0000

“Enterprise Software” is typically full of schoolboy errors. With my security geek hat on I’ll mention just the most obvious one.

Why don’t these s/w writers first read a collection of enterprise security policies … or similar easily-available material such as guidance from the various CERT organisations? e.g. http://www.auscert.org.au/5816

If you are proposing usage clearly against guidance like that I will take it as evidence you know diddly-squat about enterprise requirements.

By: Maintenance Man

Maintenance Man — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:30:40 +0000

Enterprise development cannot be a commodity, as enterprise developers are not all created equal. I would be suspicious of an eNegotiation. If you go with the low bidder, you are probably going to get a developer from the bottom of the barrel.

By: charlie

charlie — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:26:26 +0000

It’s possible that the large financial institution did due diligence on quality before submitting the RFT. If they’re sending it out to everybody under the sun, that’s one thing, but when they’ve already determined the companies/groups that meet their standards then the bidding war should among roughly equivalent players. It’s not like they’re sticking it on rent-a-coder or something, right?

By: Waldo

Waldo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:51:16 +0000

Wonderful article Eric. I’ve seen “quality” in software increasingly marginalized over the years. Companies are opting to completely rewrite bad software over and over rather than invest in something of quality that can be maintained. I believe you’re correct when you say it’s because of the industry in general. Companies that opt for quality are in no way guaranteed to get it no matter what they pay. There are too many fly-by-night vendors and developers around making a bad name for the industry as a whole, and companies are adjusting their approach accordingly. Perhaps that’s one reason doctors, lawyers, architects, etc… have to pass industry exams and get licensed before they are allows to practice. If the IT industry adopted this model, quality would rise, and we’d all be getting paid $450/hr.

By: John Haugeland

John Haugeland — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:17:33 +0000

When using the word enterprise to mean modern business, everything an enterprise does is a commodity. The only reason enterprises ever keep in-house staff is the differential cost between training and outsourcing.

By: Taliesyn

Taliesyn — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:34:59 +0000

Let me tell you that much of the engineering and construction business went this way a while ago – albeit not as visibly as using eNegotiations. Some clients believe that the services and people are “interchangeable” and that the quality of product is independent of the individual project manager and engineering staff skills… And like software development – this is demonstrably not true…

By: Chad

Chad — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:05:04 +0000

The core of the issue lies in the manner in which IT departments have allowed HR departments to recruit & staff. Despite HR’s best efforts, hiring should not be a chinese menu where the people whom advance in the process are those with x years of skill a, y years of skill b, etc. Simply reading position requirements is enough to cause a stroke.

“So given that financial services organisations usually demonstrate considerable acumen in business dealings”….. Really?? I mean, REALLY???