I stand by my point about not posting if it didn't happen. But I'll elaborate more by saying that I probably wouldn't have written it yet. If I hadn't had the experience, chances are I wouldn't have written it until the next time it happened. Not raising the point because it's not a hot topic in my head right now doesn't make it less important either I agree, it's an important topic and one that should be discussed, hence why I used my recent experience to talk about it. The crux of the issue is that Managers are making those decisions full stop, regardless of the means. That responsibility should be delegated to those who understand the tech and are more able to pick the right tool. Though I admit, even in the tech world it's hard to find someone who will evaluate tech without some kind of bias.

That comment about decisions based on a chat over a cup of coffee is scarily close to the mark

Cheers bud!
OJ

Also, your post was crystal clear, including your undercurrent of thought and my complaint wasn't about that – it was about the example you chose – a crap one :-P

Also – saying if they'd delegated the technical decision etc etc this post wouldn't have been written is just plain wrong. Just because those guys *may* have got it right doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. It *does* and in a very bad way – just didn't come across with your example – so it needs to be talked about and solutions need to be found, i.e. Managers need to stop blindly deciding on technology based on a cup of coffee they had with a SharePoint evangelist – that's the real crap that happens that should stop. Immediately!

All the best mate,
Rob

So the motivation for the post, and the main point of it, was that the decision to use any technology was made by those individuals that are the least technically qualified. No discussion with technical people was had prior to the decision being made. If they had delegated the task to someone in the know, such as a strong technical lead, and they in turn had done a proper evaluation of the options then this post wouldn't have been written! I would have been more than happy to accept the .NET option without question. The issue is the way the decision was made more than the decision itself.

I've been using .NET for a very long time (as you both know) and I'm not exactly saying that .NET is a shit option. The sundry point that I was making in the post about believing Erlang would have been a better choice, which I consider tongue-in-cheek because I know that it'd be considered a little controversial, wasn't really the main driver for the post. I still do feel that Erlang would be better suited, but that doesn't mean that I think .NET is a fail and it doesn't mean I wouldn't consider the job as a good gig to be part of because .NET is the selected platform.

I'm certainly not stupid enough to attempt to convince my interviewers to use a technology they (probably) haven't heard of during an interview. I'm a little surprised that you guys would think I'd consider doing that.

In short, what the post says is:

* Non-technical people shouldn't make decisions about technology
* Technical people should make decisions about technology after properly evaluating the options
* Technical people on the whole need to open to other options that our outside their comfort zone

Does that make it clearer?

second time round, I thought I'd read the comments first. Turns out, like Robert, I too tend to have some questions regarding this last post. I agree with Robert on the micro/macro decision making, but I also know that it is extremely difficult to educate your higher peers with something they have never heard of, and if they haven't heard of it how are they going to manage this project? To their eyes there would be too many unknowns to give the go ahead.

I, of course, generalise here, not every managers, technical directors I worked for are like this, but in general you will have to spend time to prove that you know everything there is to know about this technology you are pushing for. And even with that, you might even have to prove that you have “commercial” experience on this…

This would take a long time, and certainly would take longer than a 10 minute interview to convince a company to chose a technology they never heard of…

Y.

I think you've hit the nail on the side a bit with this one – you know, the kind where you have to pull it out, straighten it and try again? The issue you mention in the title is prevalent, and make no mistake, it's a big problem, but your example…hmm…how can I put this….just doesn't do it for me. And I'll tell you why:

Firstly, I don't think there's anything wrong with having 3 non-technical types doing the interview as long as one of them would be directly responsible for managing you. In my experience, it's always been less to do with the number of buzz words the developer uses or methods he's manged to memorise without having to refer to documentation or intellisense – and more about his personality fit for my team.

Secondly (as others have pointed out), it's perfectly fine for the business/enterprise owner to choose the technology. If they care about their business (and that's a BIG IF – I'm not interested in the ones that don't care enough) then they've already done some research and got developer opinions from here to Timbuktu – many of which will conflict as you well know. In the end, they have to make the decision based on other factors, like replacing unexpected loss of skilled devs, the market etc etc. I also don't think it's got anything to do with what competitors are using – not at enterprise level anyway.

It's a business decision which in the end needs to be made by an informed business person. I know some specific technologies are better suited to certain tasks than others, but what do we expect when us developers keep going on about the fact we're so good we can build the next big CRM killer with nothing more than a mothball and a half eaten can of sardines, oh and this bright green yo-yo. Business owners struggle to separate fact from fiction, and so in the end they pull you into to an interview to assess “you” as a personality, to see if you're gonna help them or hinder them. Yes they've chosen the base technology already, and now they want to know if you can help them succeed with it.

Where I think this argument you make has tons of merit, is if they told you it was a .Net based solution and then proceeded to tell you that you also had to forget about MVC and that that they had carefully picked Entity Framework v1.0 as the ORM of choice, oh and they'd promised the customer that it would be delivered as a Sharepoint web part. That's the point where you get to walk out of the interview or the job because then they really are eating the proverial porrdige.

I think that mangement types making software choices at the microcosm level should be banned – and I think that is the real gripe you should be having here. Software choice at a macrocosm level has always been dictated to some degree by external market factors and will continue to be for a long time. Banks have steaked their livelihood on technologies like Java…ok maybe that was a bad example, but the point is that enterprise software has and always will be a slow turning wheel. It's like the Exxon Valdez coming in to port – as captain and navigator, you'd better know damn well that you'll fit through the Suez or you're gonna be facing the long trip round. The only way for enterprises to “know” their choice is right is by looking at total market experience – and as that stands today, you're basically choosing between the heavy hitters with big corporate backing like .Net and Java. The smaller (albeit better suited) technologies will have to wait their turn, and if they stand that test of time, you can be sure they'll find their way in to enterprise slowly but surely – as long as people like you keep pushing for it!

Damn – shoulda blogged this – getting to long now. Oh well.

Great post mate, give us a great example of when business made the technology choice without taking our warnings into account…I know you have many…pull that nail out and try again – if nothing else at least I've given you another reason to rant!

All the best,
Rob G

We need more people like Pete Williams in this world

That is SO close to this situation it's scary

Like you said, they're few and far between.