Brazen cynical lack of professional exemplified by people saying "what's in it for me"

It is far to often that I hear IT people employed on fat salaries by large enterprises say "what's in it for me". I sat in a meeting yesterday and heard this smug inane recant.

When pressed they will claim with smiling sophistry, that they mean "what helps me do a better job for my employer", but it is obvious to all, and from their behaviour, they mean precisely what they originally said.

I know of no profession, no priest, no architect, no engineer when asked to do their job in a proper and professional manner blithely chirps up with "what is in it for me".

What staggers me is not that people think this, many make think it, it is that people have the Trumpian temerity to say it out loud as if there is nothing wrong with it.

A decade ago the Royal of Academy of Engineering and British Computer Society identified in their report on issues with IT:

• "there is a broad reluctance to accept that complex IT projects have many similarities with major engineering projects and would benefit from greater application of well established engineering and project management ..."
• "a striking proportion of ... difficulties stem from people ... failing to implement known best practice. This can be ascribed to the general absence of collective professionalism in the IT industry..."
• "...  problems relate to the people and processes but further in developments in methods and tools is required to support the design and delivery ..."

It is work reading - the report IT Challenges


Not a day goes by in enterprise IT without these point be exemplified.

My genuine interest is in working how to do things better and I can not believe the hours I have wasted with people who really do think "what's in it for me" is acceptable.

How some building architecture militates against EA work

The task of complex design is aided by two things:
1. a environment where what is being worked on can be visualised and remains in view...
2. a environment that allows thought

Modern open plan, hot seating arrangement neither. One can only wonder at the inanity of management who expect efficiency in this environments for complex design.

About 20 year ago I read a book - called Peopleware - http://hotcashew.com/2014/02/lessons-peopleware/


During single-minded work time, people are ideally in a state that psychologists call flow . It is a condition of deep, nearly meditative involvement, a gentle sense of euphoria when one is largely unaware of the passage of time. For anyone involved in engineering, design, development, writing or similar tasks, flow is a must. These are high-momentum tasks that only go well when you’re in flow. Unfortunately, it can’t be turned on like a switch, it takes a slow descent into the subject, 15 minutes of more of concentration before the state is locked in. Each time you’re interrupted, you require an additional immersion period to get back into flow. During this immersion, you’re not really doing work.

-- 

How can still be confusing solution and software architecture with enterprise architecture

I can't believe we are still having this discussion. Last time I met Mr Zachman, long long ago, I recall him saying the "the term 'Enterprise Architecture' doesn't have the word 'technology' in it"

I agree with Mr Kern - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/persistant-misunderstanding-enterprise-architecture-matthew-kern . It is just sad he has to say it.

Cf. http://enterprisesto.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/what-is-ea-and-what-is-epm.html