Skip to main content

Jargon

 Business loves jargon.  As a management consultant long time ago I was part of a cult spreading the gospel of how businesses can optimize and restructure and re-engineer.

To do so required intricate project management and program management and waterfall based roll outs of ERP software.  Who, what, when?  ERP was enterprise resource planning and was a way to integrate back office functions on a single platform to save money.

Then in the spirit of planned obsolescence came new tech and new process and new lingo.

Largely the domain of some wonk in the arcane science of managing people as a resource they came up with thoughts that said we cannot do complex projects with a waterfall approach.

We need to speed things up and that calls for creation of pods of people with differing expertise.  Now let us call them scrums.  A term I think borrowed from a rugby game.  No idea why.

This lingofication was bundled in an entire body of work now called Agile framework.  Jobs started being sourced by organizations to address any man or woman who could speak this new jargon and educate others to speak it.  LOL.

Eventually some IBMers came up with another idea.  Hey what if we now proclaim that this Agile stuff is stale? More biz...more moolah.

Why not?  So now they have SAFe which is an acronym for Scaled Agile Framework.  It is rife with new words that are basically new wine in old bottle.  And frankly it is a doozy!

Words like debt, to signify pending code fixes; refining instead of grooming (I guess shabby people refining poor code is now hip and we are talking people not in the oil business) and many such idiotic phrases are de rigueur.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...
2 comments
Read more

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...
2 comments
Read more