173 agents that nobody in the org could explain, that detail alone is a full case study in what organizational debt actually looks like at scale. The day-one meeting scene is striking because you clearly saw the problem before you even sat down. Following this series closely.
Lessons, will be learned no doubt, but i'm afraid they are almost guaranteed to be the wrong lessons. [insert aptly labeled "scroll of truth meme"
I doubt that senior leadership of any mega crop will ever see employees as more than numbers on a spreadsheet with only cost associated to them. The degree of sociopathy required to climb the corporate ladder that high doesn't allow it to be any other way.
Until there is some real competition and regulation out there to break the tech oligopoly and makes "value for customers" > "value for share holders" again, little will change
The problems you highlight in this article as well as the whole series apply to the industry at large as well.
All the time we see products rushed to market for market share, the idea that engineers should be fungible and therefore we can easily hire and replace people and we all know about the organization politics at play that hamper technical architecture.
Azure sounds like a combination of all of these. With the right pressure on the company though (and no doubt the open AI debacle and these articles must be raising questions internally at multiple levels), leadership will have to change things successfully or be changed.
173 agents that nobody in the org could explain, that detail alone is a full case study in what organizational debt actually looks like at scale. The day-one meeting scene is striking because you clearly saw the problem before you even sat down. Following this series closely.
Lessons, will be learned no doubt, but i'm afraid they are almost guaranteed to be the wrong lessons. [insert aptly labeled "scroll of truth meme"
I doubt that senior leadership of any mega crop will ever see employees as more than numbers on a spreadsheet with only cost associated to them. The degree of sociopathy required to climb the corporate ladder that high doesn't allow it to be any other way.
Until there is some real competition and regulation out there to break the tech oligopoly and makes "value for customers" > "value for share holders" again, little will change
The problems you highlight in this article as well as the whole series apply to the industry at large as well.
All the time we see products rushed to market for market share, the idea that engineers should be fungible and therefore we can easily hire and replace people and we all know about the organization politics at play that hamper technical architecture.
Azure sounds like a combination of all of these. With the right pressure on the company though (and no doubt the open AI debacle and these articles must be raising questions internally at multiple levels), leadership will have to change things successfully or be changed.