Computers used to improve our lives, automate seemingly mundane work, enable much done with less is omnipresent. As with anything commercially successful, software too has received careful scrutiny, tons of knowledge, plethora of suggestions on how to keep making software better. Probably many of us are aware, software industry is one of the most exciting, most confusing commercial domains of our age.
My own experience attempting to do my startup has provoked me to the depths about thinking what could be right balance of software as technology forerunner for my company, against company as a managed organization to continue improving the technology. I ponder on questions like, should management be well-versed in technology, or should management be just good, plain old management? But then, how does management perceive managing technology different to any other case for management, say automobile industry? Do I favor a hands-on, roll up your sleeves approach (and attitude) from my management team? Or do I allow managers to carefully handle the veil between upper management aspects, to low-level technical, trench oriented projects?
To me, the answer is very elusive, and not one that may have a definite answer best and safest weight loss pills. I’ll find out, but there is one small detail that I have some impressions about.
Technology projects about improving the existing technology are not new. Almost every organization having an IT division has all of their technology projects about improving the existing ones. As it goes with everything else, most of these are assessed with one primary reason – the cost. Large technology changes, cost of maintenance, technology work owned, but essentially maintained by vendors, value proposition to any emerging business … in short, how much do we get over how much we give. That is an interesting aspect, borrowed over from commercial world of business. While there are reasons why such kind of monetary evaluation precedes technology value, the issue gets clouded when technology becomes almost secondary to any company’s growth preference, money comes first (and foremost).
Amidst all this progress, I keep wondering about the value of existing technology. To me the clear question is how do organizations perceive the existing systems value? How much of current technology can be written for future? By how much – 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 1 yr? Would we, as users, creators of the technology have the same unchanged need when we are in the future?
Overall, how do you really evaluate technology improvements when one is unaware to the fact that it is current, existing technology which has led to this situation where you can think about improvements?
I feel that most of us undermine working technology, over ideal one. Ideal one, if exists, will only come by when you stop looking any further. Working technology, however, is real, error-prone, touches you now. Improvements, not just in technology but anywhere, happen when we start asking the right questions to right problems. The other option is to keep yourself shrouded in veils, pretending there is a problem your teams are solving making few more along the way to improvements.
or more easier to read as 
and 
