old is bold...

Young Indian IT professionals prefer to get into Mainframes because there are more chances of getting relocated to the client locations and harvest pay-checks in USD’s or GBP’s. But at the same time they are paranoid that their skills will become obsolete soon because one day distributed computing will take over Mainframes. Also, they have this notion that there is no real development work in Mainframes; most of the tasks are maintenance and support. Real development work now goes into distributed or open systems platforms. Is it true that Mainframes is dead or it is dying a slow death?

No. Mainframe is not dead, nor is it dying. To the surprise of all, it is coming back with a new look. It is resurrecting. This article and there are many such essays evangelizing the come-back of Mainframes. Only problem with mainframes (when viewed from programmer’s perspective) is that they are not very docile for the application development. But when viewed from a CIO’s eyes, Mainframes are around 80% cheaper than distributed systems (Total Cost of Ownership) and at the same time very efficient to handle heavy workloads.

It’s true that organizations are trying to modernize their old business critical applications. And in doing so, many of the antique applications are getting re-written into distributed platforms. IBM is investing a lot of time and money in reforming the Mainframes and has already done a lot to bring z series. New AD tools are being developed to ease the application development on Mainframes. One thing to keep in mind here is that applications developed easily might not be the best applications developed.
Meanwhile, change is around the corner. Truth is 'old and weak perish and new and strong survive'. Mainframe is old, but it's strong and has a bright future. But there will be changes in its core working style, which hopefully, will be for the good. As a wild guess, there will be new cocktail architectures – Mainframes and Java, Mainframes and Linux, Mainframes and Eclipse etc. Now, it is up to Mainframe professionals to align their career path with the changing Mainframe environment if they plan to thrive along with the changing times.

whither the Indian IT...

Let me open my mouth with a defensive cliche 'life doesn't like straight lines'. Young, restless and 'virgin' Indian IT professionals are making their way into the new world - which also cannot be in straight lines. This global osmosis of talent, skills and potential is happening slowly - and will remain invisible to the eyes until one day it explodes forth an abrupt result (something like information technology Tsunami) which touches every corner of the latent dice. Until then we can only be part of the change and hang on a little more.

James McGovern has written an inciting blog (thankfully on my request)which gives great insight into current IT scenario in India. It is a must read for every Indian IT professional, in or out of India; especially at the time when yearly appraisals are on along with rising inflation and slowing GDP growth in the country.

small is beautiful...

Quotes from Small is Beautiful by E F Schumacher:

"Education can help us only if it produces “whole men”. The truly educated man is not a man who knows a bit of everything, not even the man who knows all the details of all subjects (if such a thing were possible): the “whole man” in fact, may have little detailed knowledge of facts and theories, he may treasure the Encyclopedia Britannica because “she knows and he needn’t”, but he will be truly in touch with the centre."

"No system or machinery or economic doctrine or theory stands on its own feet: it is invariably built on a metaphysical foundation, that is to say, upon man's basic outlook on life, its meaning and its purpose. I have talked about the religion of economics, the idol worship of material possessions, of consumption and the so-called standard of living, and the fateful propensity that rejoices in the fact that 'what were luxuries to our fathers have become necessities for us.'

"The way in which we experience and interpret the world obviously depends very much indeed on the kind of ideas that fill our minds. If they are mainly small, weak, superficial, and incoherent, life will appear insipid, uninteresting, petty, and chaotic. It is difficult to bear the resultant feeling of emptiness, and the vacuum of our minds may only too easily be filled by some big, fantastic notion – political or otherwise – which suddenly seems to illumine everything and to give meaning and purpose to our existence. It needs no emphasis that herein lies one of the great dangers of our time."

"Man is small, and, therefore, small is beautiful."

"A modern economist is used to measuring the 'standard of living' by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is 'better off' than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. . . . The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity."

"It is clear, therefore, that Buddhist economics must be very different from the economics of modern materialism, since the Buddhist sees the essence of civilizations not in a multiplication of wants but in the purification of human character. Character, at the same time, is formed primarily by a man's work. And work, properly conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it and equally their products."

"The most striking thing about modern industry is that it requires so much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency therefore remains unnoticed."

why managers...

CPU’s now run at millions of instructions per second. Size of primary memory has increased manifold. New tools, IDE’s have arrived to reduce the involved human effort. But still, IT projects go on as if eternity has their names written on it. IT projects are no longer as much about the technology as they are about people. When it comes to an IT project - people plan, execute, control and hang around without any purpose. People are the primary bottlenecks in a project which keeps overshooting the planned schedule.

Someone overslept in the morning, did not take bath, missed the bus to office, did not have proper breakfast, someone got late because she had to drop her kid (even worse kids) to the school, someone is struggling with the extra alcohol of previous night – and they are supposed to balance another important aspect of their lives – work. No doubt when there is a conflict between work and non-work life, non-work life takes precedence in most of the cases and consequently work suffers. In a way, people don’t suffer as much because of work as work suffers because of people.

People have now become the most conspicuous bottlenecks in the projects. Interdependency of a project upon different teams, different groups and different skills has gradually distorted the uniformity and smoothness of operations. Coordination between such islands of information/operations remains a challenge. Understanding the goals of every group is a challenge in itself and it represents most of the time actually spent during the project.

There comes the need of a charming handsome gentleman or a beautiful articulate lady to smooth the edges and bridge the gap between the otherwise isolated islands. There is a saying in Chinese that ‘if you don’t have a smiling face, don’t open a shop’ which can be rephrased for the present times as ‘if you don’t have a smiling face, don’t even think of becoming a manager’.

P for Process...

Processes are, by definition, the set of rules or standards put forth for smooth operations of a business to achieve desired results. There are bulky documents in every organization containing religiously written texts dedicated to processes. But, the question every process document fails to answer is ‘Why the process should be followed?’ And if this question is coming in the mind of a person who is supposed to follow the process, then it is a sure sign of a budding scepticism that, if left unanswered, can be detrimental for the organization in future.

The standards set by the policymakers of an organization, at any level, are delicate rules of organizational ecology. Meaning, for followers, these standards are not as undeniable as the law of gravity or the laws of motion. Reason - these standards are set up by the rationale of human beings and are very prone to becoming obsolete with changing business practices and within a very short period of time. The law of gravity never changes – so there is no problem following the law, every creature is born with the instinctive acceptance. Just imagine if the gravity was 9.8 N one day and the other day it changed suddenly to 6 N, how much effort it will require for the whole creation to adapt to the new law. Thank God gravity is intact but that’s exactly what happens with business rules; they are prone to fast changes. And changes in business rules give rise to changes in processes.

Process is an essential part of everyday life – be it making chicken curry or launching missiles. For a novice cook, it doesn’t matter whether she puts onion in the hot oil first or the asafoetida. But for a seasoned chef that does make a difference in the resultant taste of the dish. That’s the effect of processes – they reflect the maturity of the profession. But sadly maturity cannot come just by labelling it to the job titles of the professionals. It has to take roots in the vision of the individual, only then can it become meaningful for the individual as well as for the organization.

In words of James McGovern:

I believe that process is intended to "raise the floor" - that is to elevate the minimum acceptable standard across all participants. The process itself is designed to create an output of a particular (acceptable) level or quality. Process is also good for consistency.

Competence is about "raising the ceiling." The upper threshold of what I can achieve is dictated by my competence. As per above, my incompetence can be offset by process (to a certain extent). People of high competence may want to resist process, because it brings their execution down to a lower level than what they are capable of delivering. This creates the tension of "do I have to follow THAT process?"

Process is an organization-wide solution. Implement once and it touches all people (or is supposed to). Competence is an individual-wide solution. It is implemented one persona at a time. This makes it much harder to manage...