Yesterday's high-tech is today's service. Xerox did the unthinkable -- inventing an entirely dry version of the mimeograph process. Hardly seems high tech now, seeing copier repair guys tooling around replacing drums and rollers. IBM made the machines that made long distance toll accounting possible and the census possible, but before long, most of their energy went into supporting the machines they had out in the field, back when they were still hulking giants, and now they mostly just try to sell hardware and software.
Before a company goes low tech, it hires business people to come in and make executive decisions, or whisper into the executive ear, about how to maximize how much money is made off of the technology that's there.
I think they use the word "leverage" a lot.
Business guys know a lot more about how to business works than technology works, of course, so they bring in a bunch of their buddies, and they bring in a bunch of their buddies, and so on, and then there are a few poor tech guys on the bottom of the org chart.
A few companies were famously bad at tech even though they were still tech companies -- SGI, for example. Commodore. Apple, without Jobs. The business guys knew exactly what they wanted, but what they wanted made no sense, and then they did a really bad job realizing anything technical.
So, is your company trying to "leverage" an "asset" that's obvious to everyone there, but some business goons are getting credit for coming in and jumping up and down and pointing at? Does it sit there and count programmer's hours and then allocate every one of them as if they're all available for predictable things and that the work is a predictable thing, essentially counting chickens before they're hatched, just waiting to scoop up the golden eggs they're expecting?
Or is it tech people, following their instincts, staying close to that undefinable, unexplainable edge of where the impossible meets the real?
I know which one I'm at. Anyone looking for a good programmer?