Software as Softdrinks- opinions?
-
We recently had a corporate meeting where our CEO told us about the state of the company. During that process, he discussed our current crop of products, and the company's position on those products. During the meeting, he told an anecdote. I have changed the names of the people and the products to protect the guilty, but it's a sort of transcript [read my retelling] of an analogy he made during the meeting. It goes a little something like this: Our CEO [Mr. Smith] told an anecdote about a negotiation he was in recently with another company president so we could sell their product instead of our own due to its current technical problems. During the negotiations, this president that Mr. Smith was negotiating with suggested that if we sell his product we could take 35 cents on every dollar. A 35/65 split. Cool. Smith said he didn't go for it. He suggested that split be reversed, 65/35. Fine enough. This offended the other company president prompting him to go on about the quality of their product, how well it worked, how much his existing customers liked it, blah blah blah. Smith argued with him for a bit, but the other president wasn't swayed. Smith made an analogy. He said "Look at it this way, take this can of Pepsi on the table. What's in there? Water, sugar, coloring. What's in a can of Coke? Water, sugar, coloring. There really isn't any dramatic difference between the two, so the one with the best distribution network and marketing base is going to win the day." But, according to Smith, the other president went back to his original argument about the quality of his product, blah blah blah. During this analogy, I nearly came out of my chair. The problem with the other company president in this debate was that he wasn't thinking on his feet. He probably had an MBA from Harvard, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. But guess what woulda happened if I'd a'been in those negotiations? I'd have stood up, taken the chalk out of Mr. Smiths hands and said, "Let's try another analogy. Bunch of engineers. They're going to build two bridges. Now, they don't KNOW they're going to build two bridges, but they are. They build the first bridge." I would draw a little picture of a suspension bridge, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. "Then the engineers build a second bridge." Right below that, I'd draw another bridge which looked identical. "What's in the first bridge? Yep, iron and steel. What's in the second bridge? Again, iron and steel. Shortly after building the first bridge, it end
-
We recently had a corporate meeting where our CEO told us about the state of the company. During that process, he discussed our current crop of products, and the company's position on those products. During the meeting, he told an anecdote. I have changed the names of the people and the products to protect the guilty, but it's a sort of transcript [read my retelling] of an analogy he made during the meeting. It goes a little something like this: Our CEO [Mr. Smith] told an anecdote about a negotiation he was in recently with another company president so we could sell their product instead of our own due to its current technical problems. During the negotiations, this president that Mr. Smith was negotiating with suggested that if we sell his product we could take 35 cents on every dollar. A 35/65 split. Cool. Smith said he didn't go for it. He suggested that split be reversed, 65/35. Fine enough. This offended the other company president prompting him to go on about the quality of their product, how well it worked, how much his existing customers liked it, blah blah blah. Smith argued with him for a bit, but the other president wasn't swayed. Smith made an analogy. He said "Look at it this way, take this can of Pepsi on the table. What's in there? Water, sugar, coloring. What's in a can of Coke? Water, sugar, coloring. There really isn't any dramatic difference between the two, so the one with the best distribution network and marketing base is going to win the day." But, according to Smith, the other president went back to his original argument about the quality of his product, blah blah blah. During this analogy, I nearly came out of my chair. The problem with the other company president in this debate was that he wasn't thinking on his feet. He probably had an MBA from Harvard, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. But guess what woulda happened if I'd a'been in those negotiations? I'd have stood up, taken the chalk out of Mr. Smiths hands and said, "Let's try another analogy. Bunch of engineers. They're going to build two bridges. Now, they don't KNOW they're going to build two bridges, but they are. They build the first bridge." I would draw a little picture of a suspension bridge, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. "Then the engineers build a second bridge." Right below that, I'd draw another bridge which looked identical. "What's in the first bridge? Yep, iron and steel. What's in the second bridge? Again, iron and steel. Shortly after building the first bridge, it end
Paul, Interesting read, and thanks for sharing. Sorry to do this, but I sort of have to partly agree with your CEO on this one. Although, I don't totally agree with him, there is some truth behind what he's saying. The part which I don't agree with him on is that which you're analogy demonstrates in that not all products are created equal. Basically, consumers whether final or organizational will purchase a product based upon its perceived value and not its actual value. So even if your product isn't as great as the next, it can still do better in terms of sales and profits if you've got great sales people and a strong distribution channel that can sell the perception of your product being more valuable than the other one. For example, the sales gal could say something along the lines of although our product doesn't have all of the features than our competitors, where we truly really shine and differentiate ourselves is in our post-sales support, in which our competitors are severely lacking. With a product of this complexity and importance in your business, great quality support is essential for making sure that your company is always up and running 24/7 and are able to quickly resolve any problems. I know that we as developers would like to think that the quality of our software and the work that we put into our babies (the software) matters (it does), but the final value is ultimately dependent upon the buyer's perception of the product. Customer awareness and accessibility plays a big part of ensuring the success of a product line. However, marketing and sales can't exist alone and do need a fairly competent product to succeed. A company can't sell many units of just any old crappy software no matter how good the sales person/team is. Although your CEO would like to think that the quality of software doesn't matter, it eventually will catch up sooner or later as the reputation of the company erodes and the channels give way to the competitors with the quality product.
-
Paul, Interesting read, and thanks for sharing. Sorry to do this, but I sort of have to partly agree with your CEO on this one. Although, I don't totally agree with him, there is some truth behind what he's saying. The part which I don't agree with him on is that which you're analogy demonstrates in that not all products are created equal. Basically, consumers whether final or organizational will purchase a product based upon its perceived value and not its actual value. So even if your product isn't as great as the next, it can still do better in terms of sales and profits if you've got great sales people and a strong distribution channel that can sell the perception of your product being more valuable than the other one. For example, the sales gal could say something along the lines of although our product doesn't have all of the features than our competitors, where we truly really shine and differentiate ourselves is in our post-sales support, in which our competitors are severely lacking. With a product of this complexity and importance in your business, great quality support is essential for making sure that your company is always up and running 24/7 and are able to quickly resolve any problems. I know that we as developers would like to think that the quality of our software and the work that we put into our babies (the software) matters (it does), but the final value is ultimately dependent upon the buyer's perception of the product. Customer awareness and accessibility plays a big part of ensuring the success of a product line. However, marketing and sales can't exist alone and do need a fairly competent product to succeed. A company can't sell many units of just any old crappy software no matter how good the sales person/team is. Although your CEO would like to think that the quality of software doesn't matter, it eventually will catch up sooner or later as the reputation of the company erodes and the channels give way to the competitors with the quality product.
Thanks for the opinion! For the purposes of brevity, I left some stuff out of my original message. I didn't want to post something so long, no one would read it. First off, the part I left out of my 'transcript' was the acknowledgement that a fair or even mediocre product with a kick-ass distribution network and gold plated marketing strategy will beat a great product with a lousy (or no) distribution system and weak marketing strategy any time of the week. And I agree, we software developers sometimes believe that it's the product, product, product (read engineering) which is the be all and end all of the process. I don't fall into that category. I'm too old, and too experienced to have that kind of idealism. Another good analogy is a well known analogy between Chevy and Cadillac. More Chevy's than Cadillac's are sold every year. I also had an epiphany several years ago. It was one of those disappointing epiphanies. One of those cold hard, life ain't fair, get over it epiphanies. But I realized it was true. The fact is, some of those absolutely horrible, candy coated, crappy marketing 'notions' of products and customers that we software engineers absolutely loathe are absolutely true. One of them: Here at ABC Inc., we don't sell a product to our customers, we sell a relationship. Everyone gagging, yet? Whelp, it's true. I've had hands on experience with one of the poorest engineered products that could have ever slipped through alpha testing, but customers use it, and most like it. Reason: the relationship we have with our customers, and our support efforts toward the program overshadow it's tremendous weaknesses. But here's where I have a problem with Mr. Smith. They started this company with this same attitude: "Programmers? Pshaw, hire some VB code slinger for $28,000 per year- who cares where you get them." This strategy has failed the company. Demonstrably. So, the company is attempting to save itself by doing some reorganization (much needed) and slowing the financial burn (much needed). But there's still a lack of focus on the core of the problem: the products don't work. And when your products don't work, your relationship with your customers becomes weakened, your support department starts suffering morale problems, and the company starts losing a far less tangible but arguably important kind of capital: Moral Capital. No one's going to argue that good dist. networks and top notch marketing won't overcome another similar product with no dist. network and marketing.
-
Thanks for the opinion! For the purposes of brevity, I left some stuff out of my original message. I didn't want to post something so long, no one would read it. First off, the part I left out of my 'transcript' was the acknowledgement that a fair or even mediocre product with a kick-ass distribution network and gold plated marketing strategy will beat a great product with a lousy (or no) distribution system and weak marketing strategy any time of the week. And I agree, we software developers sometimes believe that it's the product, product, product (read engineering) which is the be all and end all of the process. I don't fall into that category. I'm too old, and too experienced to have that kind of idealism. Another good analogy is a well known analogy between Chevy and Cadillac. More Chevy's than Cadillac's are sold every year. I also had an epiphany several years ago. It was one of those disappointing epiphanies. One of those cold hard, life ain't fair, get over it epiphanies. But I realized it was true. The fact is, some of those absolutely horrible, candy coated, crappy marketing 'notions' of products and customers that we software engineers absolutely loathe are absolutely true. One of them: Here at ABC Inc., we don't sell a product to our customers, we sell a relationship. Everyone gagging, yet? Whelp, it's true. I've had hands on experience with one of the poorest engineered products that could have ever slipped through alpha testing, but customers use it, and most like it. Reason: the relationship we have with our customers, and our support efforts toward the program overshadow it's tremendous weaknesses. But here's where I have a problem with Mr. Smith. They started this company with this same attitude: "Programmers? Pshaw, hire some VB code slinger for $28,000 per year- who cares where you get them." This strategy has failed the company. Demonstrably. So, the company is attempting to save itself by doing some reorganization (much needed) and slowing the financial burn (much needed). But there's still a lack of focus on the core of the problem: the products don't work. And when your products don't work, your relationship with your customers becomes weakened, your support department starts suffering morale problems, and the company starts losing a far less tangible but arguably important kind of capital: Moral Capital. No one's going to argue that good dist. networks and top notch marketing won't overcome another similar product with no dist. network and marketing.
So have you got your parachute packed? I'd be bailing out about now, were I you... Your top management seems to be suffering from acute and chronic rectocranial inversion, and there's little hope of recovery! Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo... -
So have you got your parachute packed? I'd be bailing out about now, were I you... Your top management seems to be suffering from acute and chronic rectocranial inversion, and there's little hope of recovery! Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo..."rectocranial inversion" (tee hee) I've got to remember that one! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Gary R. Wheeler
-
Paul, Interesting read, and thanks for sharing. Sorry to do this, but I sort of have to partly agree with your CEO on this one. Although, I don't totally agree with him, there is some truth behind what he's saying. The part which I don't agree with him on is that which you're analogy demonstrates in that not all products are created equal. Basically, consumers whether final or organizational will purchase a product based upon its perceived value and not its actual value. So even if your product isn't as great as the next, it can still do better in terms of sales and profits if you've got great sales people and a strong distribution channel that can sell the perception of your product being more valuable than the other one. For example, the sales gal could say something along the lines of although our product doesn't have all of the features than our competitors, where we truly really shine and differentiate ourselves is in our post-sales support, in which our competitors are severely lacking. With a product of this complexity and importance in your business, great quality support is essential for making sure that your company is always up and running 24/7 and are able to quickly resolve any problems. I know that we as developers would like to think that the quality of our software and the work that we put into our babies (the software) matters (it does), but the final value is ultimately dependent upon the buyer's perception of the product. Customer awareness and accessibility plays a big part of ensuring the success of a product line. However, marketing and sales can't exist alone and do need a fairly competent product to succeed. A company can't sell many units of just any old crappy software no matter how good the sales person/team is. Although your CEO would like to think that the quality of software doesn't matter, it eventually will catch up sooner or later as the reputation of the company erodes and the channels give way to the competitors with the quality product.
So true. The company I work for recently lost a sale to *** (rhymes with Big Blue). The potential customer told us that our product was technically superior (it is), lower cost of ownership (it is, if you follow our maintenance guidelines), and fit better with their site plans. The reason we lost the sale? *** had a better sales presentation. Gary R. Wheeler
-
Thanks for the opinion! For the purposes of brevity, I left some stuff out of my original message. I didn't want to post something so long, no one would read it. First off, the part I left out of my 'transcript' was the acknowledgement that a fair or even mediocre product with a kick-ass distribution network and gold plated marketing strategy will beat a great product with a lousy (or no) distribution system and weak marketing strategy any time of the week. And I agree, we software developers sometimes believe that it's the product, product, product (read engineering) which is the be all and end all of the process. I don't fall into that category. I'm too old, and too experienced to have that kind of idealism. Another good analogy is a well known analogy between Chevy and Cadillac. More Chevy's than Cadillac's are sold every year. I also had an epiphany several years ago. It was one of those disappointing epiphanies. One of those cold hard, life ain't fair, get over it epiphanies. But I realized it was true. The fact is, some of those absolutely horrible, candy coated, crappy marketing 'notions' of products and customers that we software engineers absolutely loathe are absolutely true. One of them: Here at ABC Inc., we don't sell a product to our customers, we sell a relationship. Everyone gagging, yet? Whelp, it's true. I've had hands on experience with one of the poorest engineered products that could have ever slipped through alpha testing, but customers use it, and most like it. Reason: the relationship we have with our customers, and our support efforts toward the program overshadow it's tremendous weaknesses. But here's where I have a problem with Mr. Smith. They started this company with this same attitude: "Programmers? Pshaw, hire some VB code slinger for $28,000 per year- who cares where you get them." This strategy has failed the company. Demonstrably. So, the company is attempting to save itself by doing some reorganization (much needed) and slowing the financial burn (much needed). But there's still a lack of focus on the core of the problem: the products don't work. And when your products don't work, your relationship with your customers becomes weakened, your support department starts suffering morale problems, and the company starts losing a far less tangible but arguably important kind of capital: Moral Capital. No one's going to argue that good dist. networks and top notch marketing won't overcome another similar product with no dist. network and marketing.
Paul Oss wrote: They started this company with this same attitude: "Programmers? Pshaw, hire some VB code slinger for $28,000 per year- who cares where you get them." This strategy has failed the company. Yes, that is definately short-sighted of the management at your firm. That type of attitude will get them nowhere fast. Most executives don't have a deep understanding of how the technology and skills utilized in developing a product can make or break a company, especially when their company is completely based on selling the technological superiority aspects of the product. It's truly unfortunate that so many bosses are myopic and won't make any inclination to try and understand the technology that they're managing. I think it just goes back to the ego and how people think their skills (whether managing, selling, developing, etc.) are the most important thing that the company depends on.
-
Paul Oss wrote: They started this company with this same attitude: "Programmers? Pshaw, hire some VB code slinger for $28,000 per year- who cares where you get them." This strategy has failed the company. Yes, that is definately short-sighted of the management at your firm. That type of attitude will get them nowhere fast. Most executives don't have a deep understanding of how the technology and skills utilized in developing a product can make or break a company, especially when their company is completely based on selling the technological superiority aspects of the product. It's truly unfortunate that so many bosses are myopic and won't make any inclination to try and understand the technology that they're managing. I think it just goes back to the ego and how people think their skills (whether managing, selling, developing, etc.) are the most important thing that the company depends on.
Reno Tiko wrote: It's truly unfortunate that so many bosses are myopic and won't make any inclination to try and understand the technology that they're managing. I think it just goes back to the ego and how people think their skills (whether managing, selling, developing, etc.) are the most important thing that the company depends on. Ironically, I don't actually blame the CEO (Mr. Smith). I blame others just below his position. The CEO's job at this point is to turn the company around. 95% of what he's done, I agree with. Most of it is financial stuff to keep the company from bleeding, and put the company back on track. He's making macro decisions, not micro decisions. But my perception is there's still some 'vision' problems that need to be addressed. Once this is done, a serious consideration needs to be put back into software quality, and a new understanding of prioritizing features vs. functionality needs to occur.
-
So have you got your parachute packed? I'd be bailing out about now, were I you... Your top management seems to be suffering from acute and chronic rectocranial inversion, and there's little hope of recovery! Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo... -
We recently had a corporate meeting where our CEO told us about the state of the company. During that process, he discussed our current crop of products, and the company's position on those products. During the meeting, he told an anecdote. I have changed the names of the people and the products to protect the guilty, but it's a sort of transcript [read my retelling] of an analogy he made during the meeting. It goes a little something like this: Our CEO [Mr. Smith] told an anecdote about a negotiation he was in recently with another company president so we could sell their product instead of our own due to its current technical problems. During the negotiations, this president that Mr. Smith was negotiating with suggested that if we sell his product we could take 35 cents on every dollar. A 35/65 split. Cool. Smith said he didn't go for it. He suggested that split be reversed, 65/35. Fine enough. This offended the other company president prompting him to go on about the quality of their product, how well it worked, how much his existing customers liked it, blah blah blah. Smith argued with him for a bit, but the other president wasn't swayed. Smith made an analogy. He said "Look at it this way, take this can of Pepsi on the table. What's in there? Water, sugar, coloring. What's in a can of Coke? Water, sugar, coloring. There really isn't any dramatic difference between the two, so the one with the best distribution network and marketing base is going to win the day." But, according to Smith, the other president went back to his original argument about the quality of his product, blah blah blah. During this analogy, I nearly came out of my chair. The problem with the other company president in this debate was that he wasn't thinking on his feet. He probably had an MBA from Harvard, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. But guess what woulda happened if I'd a'been in those negotiations? I'd have stood up, taken the chalk out of Mr. Smiths hands and said, "Let's try another analogy. Bunch of engineers. They're going to build two bridges. Now, they don't KNOW they're going to build two bridges, but they are. They build the first bridge." I would draw a little picture of a suspension bridge, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. "Then the engineers build a second bridge." Right below that, I'd draw another bridge which looked identical. "What's in the first bridge? Yep, iron and steel. What's in the second bridge? Again, iron and steel. Shortly after building the first bridge, it end
Good analogies from both you and Mr Smith, They show opposing view points. Personally I buy into your idea of a bridge that lasts 50 yrs. But the true capitalist world is a bit different. Software companies are in business to make money not software. If your can make crap software and a larger profit it is measured as a success. I hate these MBA types that have filtered into the computer industry and have us producing crapware. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Good analogies from both you and Mr Smith, They show opposing view points. Personally I buy into your idea of a bridge that lasts 50 yrs. But the true capitalist world is a bit different. Software companies are in business to make money not software. If your can make crap software and a larger profit it is measured as a success. I hate these MBA types that have filtered into the computer industry and have us producing crapware. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: I hate these MBA types that have filtered into the computer industry and have us producing crapware. I quite agree. Exactly 100% of the engineering companies/divisions I have worked for are now out of business, and every one had a 40+ year history of success. The turning point in each case was that point in time when they retired the engineers that used to run the company and replaced them with accountants or MBAs. Not all technical people have the capacity to develop management skills, but no accounting people have the ability to ever learn the technical aspects of a high-tech company. If they had that level of ability, they wouldn't have settled for the simplest of all professions. An old engineering school joke: What do you call an engineering student that can't do math? Business major. Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo... -
We recently had a corporate meeting where our CEO told us about the state of the company. During that process, he discussed our current crop of products, and the company's position on those products. During the meeting, he told an anecdote. I have changed the names of the people and the products to protect the guilty, but it's a sort of transcript [read my retelling] of an analogy he made during the meeting. It goes a little something like this: Our CEO [Mr. Smith] told an anecdote about a negotiation he was in recently with another company president so we could sell their product instead of our own due to its current technical problems. During the negotiations, this president that Mr. Smith was negotiating with suggested that if we sell his product we could take 35 cents on every dollar. A 35/65 split. Cool. Smith said he didn't go for it. He suggested that split be reversed, 65/35. Fine enough. This offended the other company president prompting him to go on about the quality of their product, how well it worked, how much his existing customers liked it, blah blah blah. Smith argued with him for a bit, but the other president wasn't swayed. Smith made an analogy. He said "Look at it this way, take this can of Pepsi on the table. What's in there? Water, sugar, coloring. What's in a can of Coke? Water, sugar, coloring. There really isn't any dramatic difference between the two, so the one with the best distribution network and marketing base is going to win the day." But, according to Smith, the other president went back to his original argument about the quality of his product, blah blah blah. During this analogy, I nearly came out of my chair. The problem with the other company president in this debate was that he wasn't thinking on his feet. He probably had an MBA from Harvard, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. But guess what woulda happened if I'd a'been in those negotiations? I'd have stood up, taken the chalk out of Mr. Smiths hands and said, "Let's try another analogy. Bunch of engineers. They're going to build two bridges. Now, they don't KNOW they're going to build two bridges, but they are. They build the first bridge." I would draw a little picture of a suspension bridge, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. "Then the engineers build a second bridge." Right below that, I'd draw another bridge which looked identical. "What's in the first bridge? Yep, iron and steel. What's in the second bridge? Again, iron and steel. Shortly after building the first bridge, it end
How much is a product worth and how much is its distribution worth? It depends on the product. Software isn't really a commodity (your CEO is arguing that it is). A better example of a commodity is refined oil or electricity. I think the big thing that's going on here is that sales people (your CEO is doing sales, afterall) are generally able to make people believe realities that don't exist. They'll try to convince you that software is a commodity if it suits their purpose, and they'll tell you that that shirt looks great on you if it gets them a commission. The problem is that sales people (who hone their argumentative skills as a requirement for doing their job) can generally out-sell the techies by the false-analogies and such. In some sense, it speaks for his negotiation skills that he could make analogies that favor his point of view. It isn't part of his job description to make analogies that favor the truth. On the other hand, we techies actually have to deal with realities (because computers don't respond to persuation). Sales people deal with perceptions. In the end, I don't know why he told his employees this story. It almost sounds like he actually believed the commodity analogy. Personally, I think it sucks that manipulating perception (what CEOs do) is worth so much more money than affecting reality (what techies do). ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Good analogies from both you and Mr Smith, They show opposing view points. Personally I buy into your idea of a bridge that lasts 50 yrs. But the true capitalist world is a bit different. Software companies are in business to make money not software. If your can make crap software and a larger profit it is measured as a success. I hate these MBA types that have filtered into the computer industry and have us producing crapware. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Personally I buy into your idea of a bridge that lasts 50 yrs. But the true capitalist world is a bit different. Interestingly, it's capitalism that's been doing its job in this case. Capitalism has almost weeded us out of the corporate gene pool. The products have been tried in the balance and found wanting. As such, the company's withering on the vine. Paul
-
Colin Davies wrote: I hate these MBA types that have filtered into the computer industry and have us producing crapware. I quite agree. Exactly 100% of the engineering companies/divisions I have worked for are now out of business, and every one had a 40+ year history of success. The turning point in each case was that point in time when they retired the engineers that used to run the company and replaced them with accountants or MBAs. Not all technical people have the capacity to develop management skills, but no accounting people have the ability to ever learn the technical aspects of a high-tech company. If they had that level of ability, they wouldn't have settled for the simplest of all professions. An old engineering school joke: What do you call an engineering student that can't do math? Business major. Word of the day: Rotundacrat
Extra Credit will be awarded for: Quasimobo...Roger Wright wrote: I quite agree. Exactly 100% of the engineering companies/divisions I have worked for are now out of business, and every one had a 40+ year history of success. The turning point in each case was that point in time when they retired the engineers that used to run the company and replaced them with accountants or MBAs I think there's a balance. There are often financial realities that engineers don't recognize, often due to our idealism. But without product, you're dead- unless you're a truly service oriented company. Eh well. A lot of good response from this thread. Thanks all. Paul
-
We recently had a corporate meeting where our CEO told us about the state of the company. During that process, he discussed our current crop of products, and the company's position on those products. During the meeting, he told an anecdote. I have changed the names of the people and the products to protect the guilty, but it's a sort of transcript [read my retelling] of an analogy he made during the meeting. It goes a little something like this: Our CEO [Mr. Smith] told an anecdote about a negotiation he was in recently with another company president so we could sell their product instead of our own due to its current technical problems. During the negotiations, this president that Mr. Smith was negotiating with suggested that if we sell his product we could take 35 cents on every dollar. A 35/65 split. Cool. Smith said he didn't go for it. He suggested that split be reversed, 65/35. Fine enough. This offended the other company president prompting him to go on about the quality of their product, how well it worked, how much his existing customers liked it, blah blah blah. Smith argued with him for a bit, but the other president wasn't swayed. Smith made an analogy. He said "Look at it this way, take this can of Pepsi on the table. What's in there? Water, sugar, coloring. What's in a can of Coke? Water, sugar, coloring. There really isn't any dramatic difference between the two, so the one with the best distribution network and marketing base is going to win the day." But, according to Smith, the other president went back to his original argument about the quality of his product, blah blah blah. During this analogy, I nearly came out of my chair. The problem with the other company president in this debate was that he wasn't thinking on his feet. He probably had an MBA from Harvard, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. But guess what woulda happened if I'd a'been in those negotiations? I'd have stood up, taken the chalk out of Mr. Smiths hands and said, "Let's try another analogy. Bunch of engineers. They're going to build two bridges. Now, they don't KNOW they're going to build two bridges, but they are. They build the first bridge." I would draw a little picture of a suspension bridge, just like the Tacoma Narrows bridge. "Then the engineers build a second bridge." Right below that, I'd draw another bridge which looked identical. "What's in the first bridge? Yep, iron and steel. What's in the second bridge? Again, iron and steel. Shortly after building the first bridge, it end
I read today's Dilbert and I thought of your boss. http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2731500021014.gif[^] ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
I read today's Dilbert and I thought of your boss. http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2731500021014.gif[^] ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
