[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: is that a fork in the road?
- From: Michael Fitzgerald <email@example.com>
- To: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 18:01:14 -0800
When a small contingent decides for of a larger contingent, the larger
contingent does not readily accept the decision, esp. when delivered
condescendingly. A Bloody Sunday (Jan. 9, 1905) eventually yields a
Bolshevik revolution which eventually yields a Perestroika which eventually
Buy-in is very important. Grassroots efforts seem to get buy-in easier than
top-down efforts, but everyone knows that, right? Right?
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 3:18 PM
Subject: RE: is that a fork in the road?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 5:25 PM
> To: Simon St.Laurent; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: is that a fork in the road?
> So I am really missing your point. Change seems
> inevitable. Will it be ad hoc or planned?
I'm trying to think of successful examples of "planned" change. I can think
of all sorts of plans that went nowhere commercially viable and were blown
away by "ad hoc" innovations ... X/Open, OSI Networking, Ada, DSSSL/HyTime
... the Soviet economy. Someone please offer counter-examples to undermine
the hypothesis that "planned change" mainly tidies up ad hoc innovation,
then gets over-ambitious, bloats up, and ultimately rots.