I like to draw unreasonable parallels with computing when I watch golf.
For example, I equate my ancient 2.33 MHz IBM with wooden shafted
putters. I equate my 10 Megabyte Winchester hard disk with golf drivers
made out of - wait for it - real *wood*.
In IT these days of course, it's gigabytes and gigahertz of everything,
everywhere. In golf these days, it's graphite everywhere and metal
drivers - still called 'woods' - that drive golf balls over 300 yards
on a regular basis. The progress in both fields is incredible to behold.
Who would have thought that so much could change in so short a time?
Anyway, back to the British Open. The commentator I was listening to
made an interesting comment as yet another golf ball was hijacked by the
wind and unceremoniously dumped into high grass and gorse bushes. The
comment was to the effect that modern golf equipment is 'highly
optimized'. It is optimized for long, flat inland courses such as those
that predominate in North America. The technology is designed to send
the golf ball very high in the air to extract the best possible blend of
distance and control over landing trajectory. This is perfect for long,
flat inland courses with predictable wind direction. Unfortunately,
sending a ball way up in the air on a seaside golf course with winds
gusting from all directions is not a good survival tactic.
The more optimized a technology is for one particular set of
circumstances, the more likely it is to fail when those circumstances
vary. I'm sure there is a name for this idea - perhaps a law named after
someone. If you know it, please let me know. Whatever this law is
called, it sure resonates with me. I'm sure I read something somewhere
about mother nature taking a similar view in her awe inspiring
technology. Species that are highly optimized for particular
circumstances do very well as long as those circumstances prevail, but
are prone to catastrophic failure (e.g. extinction) if those
circumstances change.
Some of the oldest creatures on the planet in terms of species are those
that are *least* highly adapted to particular circumstances.
Cockroaches, prairie dogs, lizards and the like for example. In each
case, there are (or have been) species that were better adapted to
particular circumstances than these creatures. However, the
general-purpose nature of the cockroach, the prairie dog and the lizard
makes them excellent survivors in the ever shifting circumstances and
vagaries we call 'life'.
And the parallel with computing here is? Well, look around you at the
technology in your enterprise with the species analogy in your head. I
suspect you can see a few ugly lizards and prairie dogs amongst the
beautiful Dodos and Ringed Seals right? Now listen carefully to the ebb
and flow of language and thought processes amongst your IT personnel.
What words do they like to use in weighting up technology and making
design decisions? Do you hear words and phrases like "optimized",
"tightly integrated", "dedicated", "specially built for X" used in the
positive sense? Do you hear words/phrases like "sub-optimal", "not
outstanding at anything" used in a negative sense?
We geeks like our toys and we all like things to be as good as they can
be for a particular set of circumstances. We like to optimize. Perhaps
to our detriment as mother nature and golf equipment manufacturing alike
tell us that suboptimal is a good long term survival tactic.
If you are in business where it makes sense to optimize for the short
term, then surround yourself with the IT equivalent of beautiful
butterflies and brightly colored reef crustaceans. If you need to
optimize for the long term health and well being of your IT
infrastructure, break out the cockroaches and the prairie dogs. 'Better
to take an old horse on a long road', as a relative of mine used to say.
I don't need to name technology names here, you are already doing that
in your head.
So am I.
