How the Mighty Fall

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, is back with another book. Whereas Good to Great focused on what makes companies stand out, How the Mighty Fall inverts the equation by looking at the prime reasons for companies not making it.

The author tries to apply the same sound formula; i) gather a lot of scientific data, ii) discern the patterns, iii) write a good book about it.

Oh, how Jim Collins must have bewailed his fate when he found out there are many, many more ways to fail than to make it.

Good to Great comes back with solid and applicable advice. This made the book an instant hit among the target audience. And rightly so.

How the Mighty Fall's main contribution to understanding failure is the 5-phased lifecycle of a company:

• Hubris born of success; the company grows and starts to adopt an arrogance stance ("We won, because we are better")
  
• Undisciplined pursuit of more; growth becomes the mainstay and strategy (in business mainly the art of not doing something) is thrown out of the window
  
• Denial of risk and peril; warning indicators of imminent doom are ignored
  
• Grasping for salvation; doom is upon the company and anything which might reverse the situation is tried
  
• Capitulation to irrelevance or death; the company is sold or goes bankrupt
  

In other words, a very generic way of describing failure, which has mainly to do with character and culture. Given that there are so many ways to fail, the author falls back on safe ground by invoking Good to Great lessons. The one addition he makes is what you can read from any biography of a great person, like Lincoln or Churchill -- never give up, never give in.

If you are new to Jim Collins' works, skip this one and honor him by starting with Good to Great instead.

Why Maven is a Schmuck (part II)

This evening I had an excellent dinner with my friends Anthony and Erik, both of whom I hold in high esteem. There is nothing like a full-blown argument in good company and while we broached several topics, the one most noteworthy was that of Maven.

Anthony opened his broadside fire by claiming that a lot of the problems he saw in projects nowadays were Maven-related. I couldn't believe what I heard: a kindred spirit with sharp criticism on the untouchable Maven!

Maven adds considerable complexity by adding a layer of abstraction, obfuscating a lot of the dependency magic. Developers like Erik have no problem grasping the whole playing field, but the impact of this complexity on the team must not be underestimated. After all, team members must be facilitated by the tools, not obstructed or forced to learn more than they need to know, which in a way is what Maven imposes.

Anthony went so far as to claim that for large projects a dedicated Maven expert is required. I feel a lot of sympathy for that claim.

We concluded on the following regarding Maven's upsides:

• IDE support; it has solid support in setting up project structures -- think Eclipse and IDEA plugins which generate from the POM. With the right POM, you are up and running literally in minutes
  
• Reports; the built-in support of Maven for many types of reports is way more advanced than what its peers offer
  
• Intermediate product support; any project which produces intermediate JARs to be reused by other projects is bound to be a dependency nightmare, but Maven takes care of that mess best. Question is: aren't these the niche projects?
  

One thing we dealt with resolutely was the convention to split up a project in many sub-projects. A sub-project which does not result in its own deployable, nor is about to be reused in any way, does not deserve its own sub-project. The argument that future architecture splits are thus enabled is an academic train of thought which is rarely exercised in real life, though imposes heavy costs throughout the life cycle of the project. Keep it simple. Most projects belong in just one project folder.

At the end of the argument, both Anthony and I were more in favor of internalization of the dependencies (see my other article on Maven), while Erik remained firmly on the side of Maven dependency management.

For internalization, there is a price to pay though: internalization means that one developer goes through the pain of "getting it right", but after that it works for all other team members and for deployment to the target environments.

Excellent discussion of which I hope to see a lot more in the future.

The 5 Temptations of a CEO

The other day, Erik pushed a little book into my hand, called The 5 Temptations of a CEO.

The book is written in what is called the business fable style. Ie, storytelling as a way of teaching. More correctly, I would term it a parable, but I think the inventors of the term business fable wanted to steer clear of that one for its religious connotations.

The book follows the soul searching of the protagonist, a failing CEO, who not so much reverses his course, as identifies what the reasons for his failing are.

The author goes forth to summarize these failing under appealing titles:

• Status over Results; when personal agendas, career paths and status symbols prevail over what the company requires to subsist. Suddenly there is a lot of "I" in the team.
  
• Popularity over Accountability; when personal ties are more important than keeping people to their promises, thus holding them accountable. People slacken off and don't take their responsibilities serious anymore. Complacency sets in. This one also has to do with using your reports as allies and venting ground.
  
• Certainty over Clarity; the need for ever more information and procrastrination by a decision maker before making the call. In board game terms, I would call this Analysis Paralysis.
  
• Harmony over Conflict; if people refuse to slug their arguments out to prevent others from getting flushed, there will be a lot of suboptimal decisions. Those who can work the dynamic best by emotionally blackmailing the group hold sway
  
• Invulnerability over Trust; working to be one-up will push others to raise their defences as well. Any argument will now become one of status and survival, immediately tied to personal interests.
  

The text behind the headers is my own interpretation, which will show you that I concur with the author in his conclusions. Powerful stuff for anyone in a leadership position to consider.