I really want mod points to award to you...
" is "being stubborn on keeping a company culture that requires people to be physically co-located," as Mullenweg puts it, a big part of tech's 'talent shortage' problem?""
I'm qualified. No, it's not useful at all. Just another abstraction...
Not that I am a fanboi of Oracle, but ODI is a fantastic tool.
This is a MASSIVE undertaking, requiring deep and profound strategic decisions to be made at the highest levels of the company/organization.
To go all in on what advice you might receive from slashdot is fool hearty at best.
Do yourself and your company a favor, hire a world class consultant to come in and provide some advice.
I feel the exact same way about all those reckless, careless, risk-taking, jock-want-to-be’s who risk their lives and wellbeing playing senseless games on the field, riding bikes and skateboards without thought or concern, and adventuring up mountain sides without care.
I find it absolutely appalling that I am forced to cough up my money to pay for their reckless behavior, broken bones, torn ligaments, hamstring injuries, and more!!
I need mod points!!!
Inquiring minds want to know...
Welcome to the club!
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Logic, statistics, problem solving, are all core to CS degrees, so I fail to see where the degree is "irrelevant to IT".
While pursuing my B.S. in Computer Science I picked up minors in sociology and anthropology, and I did take a philosophy course or two... it helped, but not to any degree you imply whereby it would ofset the need for hard technical skills. While pursuing my MBA, I focused on strategy and ops research. I understand so called "soft skills" quite well, and did not need a Psychology degree to obtain them.
So while I agree that logic is a core competency for success in the field, your statement implying "soft skills" trump technical skills is a bit irrational and incorrect thinking. Particularly when you cast aspersions such as "every problem is solved by a binary decision tree"
Good post, capturing pretty much every scenario. I am still hopeful that option e is not the most likely scenario and instead we choose c.
Not unless you are willing to place the control of the means of production under governmental control... a.k.a. Communism. Good luck with that.
Theory is not Law. What you subscribe to is Libertarian theories on market forces. They sound great, but are not at all practical to implement. Reality is far more complex and riddled with exceptions that broad Libertarian theories never seem to account for. And when challenged, the usual Libertarian responds with the typical Darwinian propaganda, something I choose to reject on moral grounds. We are neither zebras nor lions. It is not survival of the fittest. We are supposed to have an evolved sensibility and empathy.
Agreed. Good comment. Tell him to hire me, because the answer is clear. They need to operate in the open and be fully transparent, but they do need to exist.
What if the dog decides you should be the one wearing the leash?