While I was working with one of my clients a few years a go, I was given a book to read by the CEO. "The Speed of Trust". I read the book with a healthy dose of scepticism having read many management books in the past. But this book resonated with the core principles of Agile for me.
Earlier this week I read with interest an article via the Flickboard newsfeed on my phone. It highlighted the difficulties that a number of Cloud providers find themselves in. In particular the providers who scaled up quickly with offers of free services and have not successfully converted enough custom to the chargeable model. The conclusion of the article was that this market is about to experience a significant phase of consolidation.
One of the biggest challenges I have is to get people to think incrementally and iteratively when developing software. When you have spent an entire career focusing on end-goal fixed product definitions, its hard to understand it’s all about a vision, the journey and the decisions you make on the way.
While assisting one of our clients in their quest to automate the construction of their environments both locally and in the cloud I came across a tricky problem that requires a little bit of background description.
Before you start reading please be forewarned that this is not as exciting as some of the previous blogs on this site (in particular the piece about submariners and torpedoes), nor does it offer leading edge insight into anything in particular. Therefore read on at your own risk!
Former American President Calvin Coolidge once remarked, “They criticize me for harping on the obvious; if all the folks would do the few simple things they know they ought to do, most of our problems would take care of themselves.”
Following my recent blog regarding contract negotiations and the retention or otherwise of IP, I thought I'd share some further thoughts.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that projects are subject to constant change and that they should adapt to the evolving environment rather than trying to predict everything and then fighting to defend their position despite reality?
I'm regularly involved in contract negotiations on behalf of my clients and invariably find myself facing the same issue. Why is it that suppliers who are being handsomely paid for bespoke development think it reasonable that they retain the IP?
This can range from the outrageous, "all title and IP will vest with Supplier" to the more benign, "IP will pass to the Client on payment for the full system". The latter may appear reasonable, but the word "full" is the crux. Assuming stage payments, the client will have paid a substantial amount before IP is transferred.