,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
When drawing a map, I tend to place focus on where the market is [A] and where it is going [B] rather than starting with where my project / company / organisation is [C] ... there is a reason for this ... 
... if I focus on where my project / company / organisation is [C] then it's easy to think that moving to [A] is progress but in reality by the time we reach it, the act is likely to have moved on ...
... hence, I tend to focus on where the market is [A] and where it's going in the future [B]
In such a case, my position [C] is often a sign of technical debt and the better move would be to skip [A] and go to [B]
In such a case, my position [C] is often a sign of technical debt and the better move would be to skip [A] and go to [B]
At this point I should mutter something about "skating to where the puck is going" ... but, well it should be obvious. Alas, too often I see projects that span many years only to arrive at a destination that is now a "new legacy".
The classic example of that today are those "freshly" considered efforts to go "IaaS + DevOps". Really? It'll take you 7+ yrs to get there if your organisation is any size and when you arrive, it'll be at the "Wished we had gone Serverless" station.
