Something about homegrown

Very often, people use preconceptions, or pseudo-concepts. Therefore, they are easily thrown into words, not understanding their meaning. I often hear teens cheering against homegrown programs. But let's think a little about what homegrown is and what it is eaten with.

From the point of view of firms selling software to organizations, everything that is done inside organizations is homegrown. Those. those houses and kitchens in which the software company composes its
products, from their point of view, are not houses. But jobs in organizations are their homes. This is a clear and convenient position for companies. This position is firm-centered and absolutely selfish: - “We do not make home-grown products, we make universal products for everyone. We are not Kulibins. ” That is, while sitting in their homes and their kitchens, software companies know better than any homegrown developers what everyone needs. While homegrown developers only know what a particular organization needs. But here's a bad luck, many developed Japanese organizations use home-grown designs, because there science and engineering works in the kitchens of the organization itself without contractual relations with organizations that know everything better than others. But we ignore this fact.

We will not ask why the Japanese have connected science and engineering right in the production shops and offices. We care about our profits.
')
What does the software company need? She needs to sell her universal product, plant a perpetual buyer forever, and milk it, like developed countries are milking colonies. The slightest refinement should
cause a big deal, winding deadlines and prices, in general, nothing personal. What happens in organizations? The slightest refinement requires budgeting, there are battles for the allocation of funds. Over time, people choose the path of least resistance, i.e. enjoy the fact that they are and are silent in a rag, they lose the initiative, because a person acts only when he has a chance to see the embodiment of his little rationalization in action. And really, does a big software company have to do with the small rationalization of the little man?

As a result, information about the shortcomings of their systems does not reach soft-firms, they lack feedback and their products age due to the lack of such information. They are becoming more and more homegrown, they are more and more invested in advertising, brainwashing, and improving their products, mainly in the field of advertising. In addition, such a company will always develop what is already there, because you can not throw in the trash that was spent on money. And she throws out the old one only when it is obviously old and useless. Branson, in his book, wrote how difficult it was for him to stop producing CDs, although they already downloaded all the music from the Internet. Inertia is not in the country, it is in the brain.

If the developers in organizations do not solve the problems head-on (as is usually the case), the scornful cries of adolescents about the home-grownness of their developments seem to me to be something pseudo-conceptual, little-minded, which I would not like to see in IT specialists, people of the present and future.