<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lessons from &#8220;Why Software Sucks&#8221; about terminology.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.gilyehuda.com/2009/07/17/lessons-from-why-software-sucks-about-terminology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.gilyehuda.com/2009/07/17/lessons-from-why-software-sucks-about-terminology/</link>
	<description>Your path to success</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:53:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ist E 2.0 ein Thema fuer IT-Architekten? &#171; Enterprise2Punkt0 Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.gilyehuda.com/2009/07/17/lessons-from-why-software-sucks-about-terminology/comment-page-1/#comment-3264</link>
		<dc:creator>Ist E 2.0 ein Thema fuer IT-Architekten? &#171; Enterprise2Punkt0 Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gilyehuda.com/?p=543#comment-3264</guid>
		<description>[...] Portaltechnologie, Ajax, Rest, Soap, LDAP &#8211; 2.0 hat auch irgendwo technische Auswirkungen und Voraussetzungen, klar.Aber ist Enterprise 2.0 ein Thema fuer IT-Architekten? Oder, anders formuliert: Software sucks&#8230;  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Portaltechnologie, Ajax, Rest, Soap, LDAP &#8211; 2.0 hat auch irgendwo technische Auswirkungen und Voraussetzungen, klar.Aber ist Enterprise 2.0 ein Thema fuer IT-Architekten? Oder, anders formuliert: Software sucks&#8230;  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gil Yehuda</title>
		<link>http://www.gilyehuda.com/2009/07/17/lessons-from-why-software-sucks-about-terminology/comment-page-1/#comment-1227</link>
		<dc:creator>Gil Yehuda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:32:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gilyehuda.com/?p=543#comment-1227</guid>
		<description>Barry, 
Yes -- &quot;need to overcome culture&quot; is another phrase I don&#039;t care for.  Your phrasing is much better.  And in a future post I&#039;m going to expand on the term &quot;culture&quot; too (although Hutch did a great job in his post on the topic last week too).

I did not suggest a better term than adoption, since none comes to mind. Maybe I should be more explicit and ask: &lt;b&gt;is there a term that describes the process of attaining a business goal; from the perspective of the goal, not the process?&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barry,<br />
Yes &#8212; &#8220;need to overcome culture&#8221; is another phrase I don&#8217;t care for.  Your phrasing is much better.  And in a future post I&#8217;m going to expand on the term &#8220;culture&#8221; too (although Hutch did a great job in his post on the topic last week too).</p>
<p>I did not suggest a better term than adoption, since none comes to mind. Maybe I should be more explicit and ask: <b>is there a term that describes the process of attaining a business goal; from the perspective of the goal, not the process?</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Camson</title>
		<link>http://www.gilyehuda.com/2009/07/17/lessons-from-why-software-sucks-about-terminology/comment-page-1/#comment-1226</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Camson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gilyehuda.com/?p=543#comment-1226</guid>
		<description>Gil,
I appreciate your holding our collective feet to the semantic fire. Terms do matter especially as their use reifies ongoing aspects of the organization&#039;s mental model and culture.

I&#039;ll start off in the same vein by calling your attention to the phrase you used in your post, the &quot;need to overcome culture.&quot; Overcoming culture is not a phrase or concept I would advocate. It is a worthwhile question to talk about how we discuss our stance and response to existing culture. I tend to use the phrase &quot;bridging the cultural gap, because it validates both the old and the desired new culture.

I agree with you that we should talk about meeting the needs of our clients. It is the &quot;what&#039;s in it for me&quot; question. Providers, consultants and some organizational leaders because of our respective charters do talk about adoption or deployment. Adoption does have a meaning that we will be influencing others to take a new action and that these others are not currently ready to take this action. I don&#039;t necessarily see this in a negative light. For example, I could say I would like to see others adopt more healthy eating habits. However, this does have to be integrated with a respect for where others are at and the ability to work with them in meeting their needs, e.g. having a long, healthy, active life. Similarly, &quot;deployment&quot; can occur in an environment where we respect client needs though admittedly it&#039;s past usage does have a more unilateral tone. 

We are left with the question of what is a short-hand way of describing our wish to see an organization&#039;s productivity positively impacted through use of Ent 2.0 tools in a way that tells others what we are talking about.

I&#039;d be inclined to still use the word &quot;adoption&quot; until a better suggestion comes along with the caveat that this is in the context of meeting the organization&#039;s goals and respecting the organization&#039;s needs. I agree with you that we need to behave in ways that reflect that it is not about us, it is about them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gil,<br />
I appreciate your holding our collective feet to the semantic fire. Terms do matter especially as their use reifies ongoing aspects of the organization&#8217;s mental model and culture.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll start off in the same vein by calling your attention to the phrase you used in your post, the &#8220;need to overcome culture.&#8221; Overcoming culture is not a phrase or concept I would advocate. It is a worthwhile question to talk about how we discuss our stance and response to existing culture. I tend to use the phrase &#8220;bridging the cultural gap, because it validates both the old and the desired new culture.</p>
<p>I agree with you that we should talk about meeting the needs of our clients. It is the &#8220;what&#8217;s in it for me&#8221; question. Providers, consultants and some organizational leaders because of our respective charters do talk about adoption or deployment. Adoption does have a meaning that we will be influencing others to take a new action and that these others are not currently ready to take this action. I don&#8217;t necessarily see this in a negative light. For example, I could say I would like to see others adopt more healthy eating habits. However, this does have to be integrated with a respect for where others are at and the ability to work with them in meeting their needs, e.g. having a long, healthy, active life. Similarly, &#8220;deployment&#8221; can occur in an environment where we respect client needs though admittedly it&#8217;s past usage does have a more unilateral tone. </p>
<p>We are left with the question of what is a short-hand way of describing our wish to see an organization&#8217;s productivity positively impacted through use of Ent 2.0 tools in a way that tells others what we are talking about.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d be inclined to still use the word &#8220;adoption&#8221; until a better suggestion comes along with the caveat that this is in the context of meeting the organization&#8217;s goals and respecting the organization&#8217;s needs. I agree with you that we need to behave in ways that reflect that it is not about us, it is about them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
