Several layers of j2ee for project platforms of large companies (4)

When I published the third article, cnblog told me that I cannot publish the essence twice in an hour. However, it took me an hour to write one thousand words. Today's ideas are faster.


Finally, let's talk about the operation of a recently observed project to share my understanding on the third layer.

After reaching the second level of understanding about political risks, I kept this level of understanding for a while. Of course, I can't decide what to choose from the company's top management. If you have money, just spend it! It's just that some systems use their own resources. It's really uncomfortable to use them as they are, and sometimes it's hard to complain.

I have a cool-mixed guy who is in charge of a new project, which was also guided by IBM, but I heard that when it was initially decided who would do the project, the decision was made after a certain leader pondered, but the leader did not give a reason, but thought and made the decision.

There are no major technical difficulties in this project. The success rate of technology implementation is very high, and political insurance is not required. At first, my friends did not select IBM when they made the plan, but they chose a good qualification based on their evaluation, however, the price is one of IBM's 1/5 vendors as a recommendation for leadership decisions.

One thing we don't think too much about is that although this project has no technical risks, there is a political risk as a whole. A business model to be supported by this system is very innovative. Many people in the company are in conflict with this project for various reasons. This kind of rebound has not yet been shown during project establishment, and it is estimated that no response has been made to what this project is doing. When the program was half done, many people began to understand it, and turned to taste it. They found that this project would be "unfavorable" for themselves.

This is "unfavorable". In fact, there is no "unfavorable". It is nothing more than the shift of top-level attention, the transfer of preferential policies, and the shift of resources, business Competition and impact are far from enough, but like Guo Degang's statement, for many Chinese, if they do not benefit themselves, they will suffer losses.

So the project was impacted. After a while, it stopped and continued. After a while, the project was re-designed. It was very dangerous to be a leader.

Finally, the project is stuck. Continue! Why? Because you have IBM!

When there is a direction debate and resource competition for the project due to the above issues, the project will naturally be extended. Project 1 was postponed, and a group of members of Party A had to continue to make such a mess. IBM had to quit. First, their engineers and consultants were here every day, the hourly cost is the same as the flow of water. 2. How can I crash a project created by IBM? In the future, let the industry say, "the platform of a certain company is made by IBM, and it is terrible !" Where is IBM's face? IBM is also an official company, and its capabilities are strong, but internal politics is also very complicated, maybe more complicated than us, they can not afford to lose this person. Third, IBM has already completed the budget receivables for each phase of work money in the financial plan. You are delayed and don't pay the check!

As a result, IBM launched an offensive against Party A through a long-established network of contacts. Suddenly, there was an IBM marketing team at the top and bottom, and the project owner was assisted, the project objectives were quickly determined, the debate subsided, and the project continued.

Later, when we chatted, we all admired the brilliant technique of the project owner. He saw the future risks of the project, so he adopted the strategy of binding the project to a large manufacturer, in the case of a crisis, the company's decision-making layer was overwhelmed by pressure, and finally it was nearly successful. If another small company is decided to do this at the beginning, when such a problem occurs, the small party B can only shut up and wait for a long time to listen to people's distribution.

Although I have paid IBM 5 times the cost, the project can continue after all, even if it is "management cost.

Summary:
* If a project has technical risks and no political risks, you must use the configuration that seems to be the highest from the perspective of project decision-making. The political risks caused by technical implementation difficulties should be used, it can be inferred through the transmission of inequality: "Party B is so powerful that there is no way to do it. Therefore, this project is indeed beyond our and current technical capabilities in the industry ".
* If a project has political risks and no technical risks, and you are not confident to solve these problems on your own, you may wish to attract large manufacturers and leverage their power to push the project at key points.
* If there is a project that has no technical risks and no political risks, you can consider using a pragmatic and enterprising small company to quickly implement a local "low-end solution.


At the end, you should understand what I mean: in many enterprises, the selection of project technology has basically nothing to do with J2EE and. net technology. These two technologies are just the weapons that happen to be selected by the two camps. There may be some minor differences, but they are not important at all. Both the MS and anti-MS camps adopt different positioning, so they occupy both ends of the market. Who is the high end and who is the low end, it cannot be explained which of the two technologies is "advanced", and which is "low-level" technology.

Of course, in order to meet the needs of different customers at both ends, the two types of platforms have provided corresponding additional products. For example, Java has invented J2ee, which is a bit of a piece of cake, and many extremely abstract and complex implementation modes. net has invented server controls, viewstat, and data binding tools.


The purpose of this article is to communicate your ideas with everyone. On the other hand, we also want to persuade everyone that there is no need to worry too much about the small difference in technology. Currently, we have encountered projects, most of them do not have any technical difficulties, forcing you to choose platforms or platforms. Therefore, the choice of the technical platform is a political issue. It is a matter of strategy. I also summarized the principle of policy selection in the "layer-3 cognition". If we select the right policy, we can make the project easier to succeed-that is our goal.

-- The end --