The opportunity passes by, now your company is playing catch-up and managers above you are asking how they missed it. If you say "I told you so," you get a reprimand instead of acknowledgement.
A lot of times, devs want to move in a new direction of whatever the hip tech stack is this year. This would help their career by adding the tech to their resume but the business benefit is almost always net negative.
Rather than arguing with a developer, they might just give a response that is outside of the developers' domain. The real reason is that it was a bad idea for the business.
Mix in the usual human bias ("We got to have 1 Leader, with 1 plan, else we have civil war and unrest") and you get viewed as a failure as manager- even though you prepared the underlyig plattform technology for future successes, because one product didnt take off.
I was really spitfull on management for this. but they are limited in quite a lot of ways.
What helps is creating the ilusion that others already have done a innovation..
We don't want to avoid doing x because we will end up like [the time we missed the boat].
Their request today? "You were absolutely right two years ago. Nothing has changed in the mean time and things have become even more complex now. But could you develop X for us, knowing that you can't touch or change any of the architecture?"
We did dissect the pros and cons, pointed to winners, showed the opportunities ahead etc etc. We were discussing everything at C-level too. But sometimes it just doesnt work.
>Until someone shows up with another story about an even newer game. That’s inevitable, of course, but hopefully it doesn’t happen until you’ve gotten very successful helping customers win at what will suddenly become an old game.
All seems a bit postmodern (post-truth I think it's the current rendition of that) ... I'm more interested in what's objectively better.
This sounds more like "we got well marketed to, drank the coolaid and now don't want to change (because we'd lose face, demonstrating our susceptibility to being conned ... which seems to me like the big problem in UK [and USA] politics at present).
Also, unrelated: I hate those "conversational" customer service bubbles. I don't know what I expect to happen when I click them, but I know that "Jennifer H", whose picture is shown next to it, is not sitting at a keyboard eagerly awaiting my questions. Maybe I expect a chatbot, maybe I expect outsourced customer-service-farms, but I don't click buttons when I don't know what they really do, especially when I know they're avoiding being up-front about it.
We see this in technical domains too. For example, I think Clojure succeeded this way. (We can argue about how much Clojure has succeeded, but it's a Lisp—we have to grade on a curve.) I don't think any attempt at improving on Common Lisp, no matter how technically solid, could have achieved that without "naming a new game", to use the article's vocabulary. Hot newness dominates improved oldness: every element of the set of hot newness beats every element of the set of improved oldness. Elixir/Erlang is another example. I say this article is one of the rarest things, a piece of marketing literature (like Crossing the Chasm and maybe the Innovator's Dilemma) that is useful to engineers.
We offer form, phone number, email, and chat. I would guess 40% chat, 40% direct email, 15% form, 5% phone?
Personally, I think forms suck on a phone and probably go to a black void I can’t even follow up on.
It's usually a chatbot that handles the repetitive questions when they're worded properly, and when it can't, asks you to hold on a sec while it forwards the question to the customer-service-farm.