What's your definition of Enterprise?
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
Beleive me, I was asked the same question in an interview 6 years back. I remember I have explained an enterprise is a robust, scalable environment with many users but Interviewer was not satisfied with it. He asked me "if it has just one user would it be called an enterprise?" At last I didn't have any patience and said to him that I was happy with my current job after talking to him.
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
Are you sure you want to question that? The feature set only puts a lower limit on application complexity. The upper limit is only constrained by developer quality.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
Are you sure you want to question that? The feature set only puts a lower limit on application complexity. The upper limit is only constrained by developer quality.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
I do beleive they considered it to be complex. From the description I was given of the application and current architecture I didn't see the complexity. Of course, I wasn't privy to all information either.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I imagine it's a starship that boldly goes where no man has gone before. Seriously, I think it's a term that people can use however they like. Obviously they use it to make themselves feel good about their efforts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Actully I was waiting for someone to say it was a rental car company, but this is good also :-D
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
A solution that requires 4 or more technologies to implement, requires 2 or more dedicated support people, and cost 100k per year in licence fees. I work for a bank.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I do beleive they considered it to be complex. From the description I was given of the application and current architecture I didn't see the complexity. Of course, I wasn't privy to all information either.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Of course, I wasn't privy to all information either.
Be reasonably sure you think you know what it is you don't know. :~
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
A system/application that is only used by 1 group/department isn't enterprise, regardless of the number of users or its complexity. The more groups that use a given system, the more i would consider it an enterprise system. I consider it a by-product that a system, that needs to be used by more than 1 group, will need to be robust, scalable, and support a high number of users.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
They say their application is very complex (which I doubt)
All you need for a complex application is an ever changing specification.
Todd Smith
-
A system/application that is only used by 1 group/department isn't enterprise, regardless of the number of users or its complexity. The more groups that use a given system, the more i would consider it an enterprise system. I consider it a by-product that a system, that needs to be used by more than 1 group, will need to be robust, scalable, and support a high number of users.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
What about an Accounting system, and to a, maybe, lesser extent Order Processing/Inventory/Sales system. I would consider them to be Enterprise because they affect the entire Enterprise in a major way, regardless of its size or the number of users/groups actually using the software.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
What about an Accounting system, and to a, maybe, lesser extent Order Processing/Inventory/Sales system. I would consider them to be Enterprise because they affect the entire Enterprise in a major way, regardless of its size or the number of users/groups actually using the software.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I'm not sure I understand your point, it's the same as mine - they affect the entire Enterprise. To me, both your examples are used by more than 1 group within a company.
...cmk The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying. - John Carmack
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
I would add that if an enterprise app fails, the company could go under. My last employer is a taxicab company -- if the dispatching system or telephone system goes belly up for any reason, the company could be out of business very quickly.
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
The starship, of course... Duhhh...
.45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"The staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - J. Jystad, 2001 -
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I do beleive they considered it to be complex. From the description I was given of the application and current architecture I didn't see the complexity. Of course, I wasn't privy to all information either.
only two letters away from being an asset
I envy your optimism. I've dealt with systems that replaced a simple web app with one page using integer parameters to specify an object type and method, which looked up an xslt file to transform the other input parameters into another random xml format, and then preceded to go through 5 more layers of the same pair of integers to load and call a method by pulling xml configuration out of a database, each one a separate VB6 project so you had to have 4-5 instances of VB6 open on your system to debug the damn thing. (They wrote a custom vb app just to manage the configuration in the database) On top of that, each layer transformed the current data with xslt and stored it in a different node on the same document, so you had 5 copies of slightly different versions of the same information all loaded in memory. All of this just to lookup the warranty of a single system. Another group at the same company didn't like that .net internationalization didn't have codes for all the small island nations of the world, so they built their own system using xml in multiple files, and directories. The implemented a limited concept of inheritance, and 3 different ways to override and link content, so it grew into an unmaintanable nightmare. I haven't worked there for years, but I've heard the project grew so large that win zip will no longer zip the entire directory, but the engine zips and unzips files in and out of it's memory cache because thats the only way they can get it all to fit. That stuff is totally enterprise. It's the completely pointless levels of grandiose complexity just to satisfy the developers ego.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
I envy your optimism. I've dealt with systems that replaced a simple web app with one page using integer parameters to specify an object type and method, which looked up an xslt file to transform the other input parameters into another random xml format, and then preceded to go through 5 more layers of the same pair of integers to load and call a method by pulling xml configuration out of a database, each one a separate VB6 project so you had to have 4-5 instances of VB6 open on your system to debug the damn thing. (They wrote a custom vb app just to manage the configuration in the database) On top of that, each layer transformed the current data with xslt and stored it in a different node on the same document, so you had 5 copies of slightly different versions of the same information all loaded in memory. All of this just to lookup the warranty of a single system. Another group at the same company didn't like that .net internationalization didn't have codes for all the small island nations of the world, so they built their own system using xml in multiple files, and directories. The implemented a limited concept of inheritance, and 3 different ways to override and link content, so it grew into an unmaintanable nightmare. I haven't worked there for years, but I've heard the project grew so large that win zip will no longer zip the entire directory, but the engine zips and unzips files in and out of it's memory cache because thats the only way they can get it all to fit. That stuff is totally enterprise. It's the completely pointless levels of grandiose complexity just to satisfy the developers ego.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
I'd call an app "enterprise" if it can co-operate in an environment that's multi-site/team with independent credentials and sysadmin per site/team, and global sysadmin options. What the app actually does doesn't enter into it; it's the organisational structures it can be used in that define it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
Interviewers who ask such questions are the same kind that ask what kind of a tree you would be. The answer depends, as usual with these things, on who is asking. So its fuzzy. I suppose it is any piece of software where a business would find it valuable to spend a huge sum of money in both purchase and support. Software that affects or could affect the capital budget.
_____________________________ There is no I in team. But there is meat in there.
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I had an interview with a potential client today and the question came up three times from three different people. I consider enterprise to mean an application that is very robust, scalable and supports a high number of users. However, it seems their definition is based on complexity. They say their application is very complex (which I doubt) but only has about 30 users.
only two letters away from being an asset
- Decisions are made by commitee, not individuals - They have lawyers A good commitee requires 3 people, so size isn't a requirement, but an indicator.
Personally, I love the idea that Raymond spends his nights posting bad regexs to mailing lists under the pseudonym of Jane Smith. He'd be like a super hero, only more nerdy and less useful. [Trevel]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
I envy your optimism. I've dealt with systems that replaced a simple web app with one page using integer parameters to specify an object type and method, which looked up an xslt file to transform the other input parameters into another random xml format, and then preceded to go through 5 more layers of the same pair of integers to load and call a method by pulling xml configuration out of a database, each one a separate VB6 project so you had to have 4-5 instances of VB6 open on your system to debug the damn thing. (They wrote a custom vb app just to manage the configuration in the database) On top of that, each layer transformed the current data with xslt and stored it in a different node on the same document, so you had 5 copies of slightly different versions of the same information all loaded in memory. All of this just to lookup the warranty of a single system. Another group at the same company didn't like that .net internationalization didn't have codes for all the small island nations of the world, so they built their own system using xml in multiple files, and directories. The implemented a limited concept of inheritance, and 3 different ways to override and link content, so it grew into an unmaintanable nightmare. I haven't worked there for years, but I've heard the project grew so large that win zip will no longer zip the entire directory, but the engine zips and unzips files in and out of it's memory cache because thats the only way they can get it all to fit. That stuff is totally enterprise. It's the completely pointless levels of grandiose complexity just to satisfy the developers ego.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Andy Brummer wrote:
It's the completely pointless levels of grandiose complexity just to satisfy the developers ego.
Damn, that's good.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]
