We have seen dozens of times Albania WhatsApp Number List where everything had become complicated, where the slightest change required months of analysis, represented an unsustainable investment budget, and, if the decision to do was taken, resulted in a nightmarish project. , with time and cost overruns, and often a pitiful backtracking. 1- a parts and accessories sales information system was built at great expense for France, and other countries are in the process of being opened. Architects’ solution: we extend the functionalities of France to deal with new languages, and the market specifics of other countries, and ultimately we have a single app to manage for the whole world.

Deadline: 10 months. However, those responsible for the next country to be opened must be ready in 6 months. Computer scientists therefore suggest making a copy of the app from France, and adapting it “hard” so that it works in less than 6 months in the country concerned. A few years later, the company has as many parts and accessories sales applications as the 30 countries where it sells them. Each application has become very different from the strain of France. Each application costs 400 to 800 k € of annual maintenance. Taking the time to think and design a single application would, according to estimates, have cost around

Inextricable situations

2- a company has an information system that costs more year after year, but each new need costs more and takes longer to be fulfilled. Ultimately, the leaders, faced with the mediocrity of results, give up pursuing investments apart from those deemed essential. And even the latter are difficult to finance. Each “technological” use has deployed its network: a computer network for computers. A network for video surveillance. A network for access control. A network for phones. Network bays are inextricable dishes of spaghetti, the various service providers intervened, when they left documentation, the latter does not (or no longer) reflect what is installed.


Whereas data is data, and a single, simple network could be used to convey all these flows. In each of these cases, we met managers or service providers who explained that it was like that, the fault of the business, the fault of security, the fault of the GDPR, the fault of the service provider, the publisher, or to the prescriber. But each individual could not help it and was responsible for nothing. But during this time, all these actors were, who employees, who provider, who publisher, and represented a charge in the income statement, in front of which the leaders despaired to see very little value.

The millefeuille

As usual, active dishonesty and malice are not at work, or quite exceptionally. For my part, I have only seen it once in 25 years. It’s the good old Occam principle that applies: to be dishonest you have to be very smart and organized and work a lot. And the average person is moderately intelligent and organized, and works 35 hours a week. What is at work is too little knowledge of technologies, which means that we are not making the right choices. It is also the weak mastery of basic principles: keep it simple, make it cheap (again the Occam principle), make prototypes to test the possible choices without spending too much money.

Ask technology to do what management should do Another cause is to make technology assume what is managerial responsibility. Example: putting security rules in computers and networks to prevent people from making mistakes, and putting that burden on everyone, when the problem could be solved by training, communication, and a few. benevolent examples “ look at Mr. Kalousdian, he did exactly the wrong thing. We thank him for reminding us of the good management rules “, unless there was a will to do wrong, where there is a need to sanction, and also widely communicate the sanction, the reason for the sanction.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.