Software Development the Final Frontier
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
March 15, 2002
Gather project requirements from client, analyze feature set, design, develop, test, manage releases,
and implement: a universal model for the software development process. In fact, it is more than a
model it is a mantra. Yet, the reality is gather requirements, analyze multiple changes to feature list
from client, redesign to accommodate changes, stop development to include last minute changes, unit
test only part of the system because you are out of time, manage release of many candidates, and
implement. Next, cross fingers and hope for the best when software is released to client and move
on to the next project. Business and work life in the software development world comes down to
cycles: the ebb and flow of planning, analyzing, and problem solving. However, it is the speed at
which the software development process flows that pushes hi-tech companies to the final frontier:
doing business at the speed of thought.
The shift from the information to the knowledge economy required only a fraction of the time needed
for the world to move from the industrial to the information age. Yet, the speed of the transition did
not come without costs. According to De Gues (1997), “In the language of economics, companies
are expected to operate with profits as their primary goal.” Yet, “On the other hand, as suggested by
our studies, adopting this goal could well conflict with companies’ longevity and life expectancy” (p.
15). This truth was evidenced when the financial bubble stretched and burst in Silicon Valley in 1998-
99. Many of the new Internet companies created business models without solid business plans or
principles, believing that speed to market, market share ownership, and the power of technology
would carry them through: it didn’t. Managers did not think long term, but rather “…[chose] the path
of highest immediate return on investment…” (p.15).
The reality was that short-term thinking, lavish launch parties, overvalued initial public stock
offerings to fund operations, and extravagant media blitzes did not a sound, long-lasting business
make. As stated by De Gues (1997), when “…managers…asked [him] why [he] would expect them
to manage for the long run, with the risk of being dead in the short term,” his answer was “The
dichotomy between profits and longevity is false” (p.15). Further, that “Corporate success and
longevity are fundamentally interwoven, in a way that, nowadays, is qualitatively different from the
relationship between success and longevity in the economic environment of five decades ago” (p.15).
Yet, the virtual speed and short cycle times with which innovative technologies could be developed
masked the very real, long-term financial consequences of the decisions made.
As stated above, the availability of large amounts of venture capital coupled with the seemingly
infallible power of technology cloaked the flawed underlying assumptions of the spend-and-learn
Internet start-up business models. For a number of founders and managers of Internet companies,
rapid successes lead to over confidence and resulted in false perceptions about their ability to avoid
the inherent volatility and risks involved with any start-up venture. Yet, as stated by De Gues (1997),
“Learning begins with perception” (p.22). And “Neither an individual nor a company will even begin
to learn without having seen something of interest in the environment.” Which is “…why surviving
and thriving in a volatile world requires, first of all, management that is sensitive to its company’s
environment.” Thus, “At least a few of the company’s leaders should be attentive and responsive to
the world in which they [live]…”(p.22). However, too many managers were daydreaming about
future stock options, and pushing the envelope to increase the speed at which they could develop and
deploy their technology.
The desire to influence the future appears an intrinsic human need, while attempting to predict and
control the future a relatively recent social phenomenon. Wall Street analysts, venture capitalists, and
business journal editors, seemed unshakably confident in the bright and prosperous future for the
Valley. The new and untested dot com business models were hailed, and leaders in others industries
were told to follow or be left behind. Even as ominous signs like unprofitability of Amazon.com, and
the lower than expected on-line purchase figures came to light, hi-tech businesses pushed ahead.
Indeed, “Managers may see signals of a potential future and even talk about it together,” yet “…do
not respond in timely fashion to that future, even after it has occurred” (De Gues, 1997, p.38). In
reality, organizations inside and outside of Silicon Valley were struggling to accept that “The future
cannot be predicted”(p.39). And when businesses deals and decisions are being made hard and fast,
it is easy to lose sight of this fact.
The fall of Silicon Valley signaled a more global truth: rapid innovation and technological development
must be balanced with continuous learning, critical thinking, leadership, and sound business
principles to achieve long-term viability and success. Although the Silicon Valley attracted some of
the most brilliant developers and scientific minds in the world, it did not equally attract or develop
exceptional leaders and critical thinkers. The result, in part, was the proliferation of technology
created out of context: technology was being deployed faster than people outside of the tech
community were able to adopt it. De Gues (1997) states that “Having more knowledge may
ultimately mean that you become a leader” (p.16). And “Developing and adapting organizational
context is the primary responsibility of leadership” (Haeckal, 1999, p. 17). However, leading
technology development and leading a company are not one in the same.
At some point in the near future, a truly hi-tech business model may become viable: a “leaderless,”
emergent, virtual organization operating without need of brick-and-mortar rules. Yet, there is much
learning and work to be done. Leaders of hi-tech companies must first accept that “A leader who
learns is a leader who is unsure” and trust their people to fill in the gaps (De Gues, 1997, 16). They
must create “Organizational context [which] encompasses three basic parts: the organization’s reason
for being, its governing principles, and its high-level business design” (Haeckel, 1999, p. 17). And
develop organizations with “A high-level businesses design [which] is a system design of the
organization’s essential structure” that “…illustrates the relationships among elements both inside and
outside the organization in terms of the outcomes they owe one another—the outcomes essential to
achieving the [enterprises] reason for being” (p.17).
According to Haeckel (1999), “In the Information Age, more and more knowledge and more and
more ways of creating economic value are being abstracted into symbols that can be combined,
transformed, and sent around the world at electronic speed.” And “Our ability to manipulate this
dematerialized reality drives both wealth creation and…discontinuous change…” (p.19). Thus, the hi-
tech community must develop both technology and themselves to become more sensitive and
adaptive to environmental changes “…with all [their] intellect and heart, not knowing what the final
result will be, but knowing that [they] will be different when [they] come out the other end” (De
Gues, 1997, 60). Or risk developing technology out of context, where business moves so rapidly it
leaves society behind. Indeed, to repeat the fall of Silicon Valley by failing to realize that software
development companies may provide a glimpse of the final frontier, but the world is not yet ready for
doing business at the speed of thought.
References
De Gues, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Haeckel, S. (1999). Adaptive Enterprise. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
David L. Bevett, BS, MPH
March 15, 2002
Gather project requirements from client, analyze feature set, design, develop, test, manage releases,
and implement: a universal model for the software development process. In fact, it is more than a
model it is a mantra. Yet, the reality is gather requirements, analyze multiple changes to feature list
from client, redesign to accommodate changes, stop development to include last minute changes, unit
test only part of the system because you are out of time, manage release of many candidates, and
implement. Next, cross fingers and hope for the best when software is released to client and move
on to the next project. Business and work life in the software development world comes down to
cycles: the ebb and flow of planning, analyzing, and problem solving. However, it is the speed at
which the software development process flows that pushes hi-tech companies to the final frontier:
doing business at the speed of thought.
The shift from the information to the knowledge economy required only a fraction of the time needed
for the world to move from the industrial to the information age. Yet, the speed of the transition did
not come without costs. According to De Gues (1997), “In the language of economics, companies
are expected to operate with profits as their primary goal.” Yet, “On the other hand, as suggested by
our studies, adopting this goal could well conflict with companies’ longevity and life expectancy” (p.
15). This truth was evidenced when the financial bubble stretched and burst in Silicon Valley in 1998-
99. Many of the new Internet companies created business models without solid business plans or
principles, believing that speed to market, market share ownership, and the power of technology
would carry them through: it didn’t. Managers did not think long term, but rather “…[chose] the path
of highest immediate return on investment…” (p.15).
The reality was that short-term thinking, lavish launch parties, overvalued initial public stock
offerings to fund operations, and extravagant media blitzes did not a sound, long-lasting business
make. As stated by De Gues (1997), when “…managers…asked [him] why [he] would expect them
to manage for the long run, with the risk of being dead in the short term,” his answer was “The
dichotomy between profits and longevity is false” (p.15). Further, that “Corporate success and
longevity are fundamentally interwoven, in a way that, nowadays, is qualitatively different from the
relationship between success and longevity in the economic environment of five decades ago” (p.15).
Yet, the virtual speed and short cycle times with which innovative technologies could be developed
masked the very real, long-term financial consequences of the decisions made.
As stated above, the availability of large amounts of venture capital coupled with the seemingly
infallible power of technology cloaked the flawed underlying assumptions of the spend-and-learn
Internet start-up business models. For a number of founders and managers of Internet companies,
rapid successes lead to over confidence and resulted in false perceptions about their ability to avoid
the inherent volatility and risks involved with any start-up venture. Yet, as stated by De Gues (1997),
“Learning begins with perception” (p.22). And “Neither an individual nor a company will even begin
to learn without having seen something of interest in the environment.” Which is “…why surviving
and thriving in a volatile world requires, first of all, management that is sensitive to its company’s
environment.” Thus, “At least a few of the company’s leaders should be attentive and responsive to
the world in which they [live]…”(p.22). However, too many managers were daydreaming about
future stock options, and pushing the envelope to increase the speed at which they could develop and
deploy their technology.
The desire to influence the future appears an intrinsic human need, while attempting to predict and
control the future a relatively recent social phenomenon. Wall Street analysts, venture capitalists, and
business journal editors, seemed unshakably confident in the bright and prosperous future for the
Valley. The new and untested dot com business models were hailed, and leaders in others industries
were told to follow or be left behind. Even as ominous signs like unprofitability of Amazon.com, and
the lower than expected on-line purchase figures came to light, hi-tech businesses pushed ahead.
Indeed, “Managers may see signals of a potential future and even talk about it together,” yet “…do
not respond in timely fashion to that future, even after it has occurred” (De Gues, 1997, p.38). In
reality, organizations inside and outside of Silicon Valley were struggling to accept that “The future
cannot be predicted”(p.39). And when businesses deals and decisions are being made hard and fast,
it is easy to lose sight of this fact.
The fall of Silicon Valley signaled a more global truth: rapid innovation and technological development
must be balanced with continuous learning, critical thinking, leadership, and sound business
principles to achieve long-term viability and success. Although the Silicon Valley attracted some of
the most brilliant developers and scientific minds in the world, it did not equally attract or develop
exceptional leaders and critical thinkers. The result, in part, was the proliferation of technology
created out of context: technology was being deployed faster than people outside of the tech
community were able to adopt it. De Gues (1997) states that “Having more knowledge may
ultimately mean that you become a leader” (p.16). And “Developing and adapting organizational
context is the primary responsibility of leadership” (Haeckal, 1999, p. 17). However, leading
technology development and leading a company are not one in the same.
At some point in the near future, a truly hi-tech business model may become viable: a “leaderless,”
emergent, virtual organization operating without need of brick-and-mortar rules. Yet, there is much
learning and work to be done. Leaders of hi-tech companies must first accept that “A leader who
learns is a leader who is unsure” and trust their people to fill in the gaps (De Gues, 1997, 16). They
must create “Organizational context [which] encompasses three basic parts: the organization’s reason
for being, its governing principles, and its high-level business design” (Haeckel, 1999, p. 17). And
develop organizations with “A high-level businesses design [which] is a system design of the
organization’s essential structure” that “…illustrates the relationships among elements both inside and
outside the organization in terms of the outcomes they owe one another—the outcomes essential to
achieving the [enterprises] reason for being” (p.17).
According to Haeckel (1999), “In the Information Age, more and more knowledge and more and
more ways of creating economic value are being abstracted into symbols that can be combined,
transformed, and sent around the world at electronic speed.” And “Our ability to manipulate this
dematerialized reality drives both wealth creation and…discontinuous change…” (p.19). Thus, the hi-
tech community must develop both technology and themselves to become more sensitive and
adaptive to environmental changes “…with all [their] intellect and heart, not knowing what the final
result will be, but knowing that [they] will be different when [they] come out the other end” (De
Gues, 1997, 60). Or risk developing technology out of context, where business moves so rapidly it
leaves society behind. Indeed, to repeat the fall of Silicon Valley by failing to realize that software
development companies may provide a glimpse of the final frontier, but the world is not yet ready for
doing business at the speed of thought.
References
De Gues, A. (1997). The Living Company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Haeckel, S. (1999). Adaptive Enterprise. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
| Copyright © Knowledgeark.net, 2016 |
| Terms and Conditions |
Knowledgeark.net > Organizational Development > Software Development the Final Frontier
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |