Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!lgm From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: code blocks (aka closures) [Really, paradigm shifts] Message-ID: <1990Jul9.023631.9917@cbnewsc.att.com> Date: 9 Jul 90 02:36:31 GMT References: <5319@stpstn.UUCP> <11013@alice.UUCP> <5339@stpstn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 87 In article <5339@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes: >The silver bullet is not a technology, but a paradigm shift. It is a >*cultural* change, not a technological one, in precisely the sense that >Copernicus, Kepler and others forged a silver bullet for the astronomy >crisis. It was not some supercomputer or programming language for computing >epicycles more rapidly. It was a shift in that culture's viewpoint in >which the astronomers realized that they (and the earth) were not the >center of the universe, but a cog in a larger wheel circling round the sun. A more topical example would be the Polish economy, which is currently undergoing a massive paradigm shift: from central planning to a free market. Events in Poland illustrate a number of points relevant to this discussion: 1) The paradigm shift was opposed by all those who stood to lose the special status and privileges they had under the previous system. 2) Proponents of the paradigm shift attempted to press their case several times, over a period of decades, before its final acceptance. Each time, "experts" declared the paradigm shift "dead." 3) Defenders of the status quo had, in a sense, theory on their side. They pointed out that if all needs were known in advance, and if all available supplies were known in advance, and if all producer and consumer activity could be effectively controlled centrally, and if this enormous set of simultaneous equations could be solved exactly, then the economy would run more efficiently than a market-driven economy possibly could. That the economy was not working well in practice was conveniently ignored, or sometimes covered up through misrepresentation of evidence. 4) The paradigm shift finally came when it became obvious to those in power that neither the status quo nor minor "tuning" would suffice to turn the economy around. 5) The paradigm shift is indeed causing some dislocations, all the more because it was postponed for so long. The populace is putting up with this suffering because of their deep conviction that the previous system was and is unacceptable. 6) Those who pioneer the paradigm shift - the "early adopters" - take a significant risk, but can look forward to the largest payoff if they manage themselves well. And again, attempting to hold on to the previous system may represent a greater risk in the long run. >according to McGarry and Basili figures). Simplifying greatly, the >difference seems to be that they're focusing on the *product* whereas >we're focusing on the *process*; which is one way of phrasing the paradigm >shift I'm referring to. This reminds me of an article written by Richard N. Foster which appeared in the 5/24/82 issue of Business Week. Titled "A Call for Vision in Managing Technology," it includes a list of ten major signs that a company is approaching the limits of its current technology: + An intuitive sense among top managers that the company's R&D productivity is declining. + A trend toward missed R&D deadlines. + A trend toward process rather than product improvement. + A perceived loss of R&D creativity. + Disharmony among the R&D staff. + Lack of improvement from replacement of R&D leaders or staff. + Profits that come from increasingly narrower market segments. + Loss of market share - particularly to a smaller competitor - in a specialized market niche. + Little difference in returns despite spending substantially more - or less - than competitors over a period of years. + Smaller competitors that are taking radical approaches that "probably won't work." Are any of these signs appearing in the software systems industry? Lawrence G. Mayka AT&T Bell Laboratories lgm@iexist.att.com Standard disclaimer.