If you have half an eye on the markets today, you've probably noticed Yahoo stock going up like a roman candle again, on the strength of rumors that *shudder* the Microsoft deal to purchase the company is in discussions again.

So says Techcrunch; other sources claim that this is simply an extension of the search-engine related discussions which were most recently in play.

Either way, it's an unwelcome distraction from the core business at Microsoft, one which won't seem to go away, and it is possible that simply the ongoing discussions are having a negative effect even if the ultimate tragedy that would be a culmination of the deal never does. Certainly it isn't helping Microsoft's stock price... and I believe in this case the market knows what it's talking about.

It seemed to me when I saw this that I had already heard about it and mentioned it before, but I can't find any entry discussing it... so this must be old age, then. But it appeals to my fascination with IT in unusual places, and there are few places so unusual as the International Space Station... where HP Procurve switches are now the networking devices of choice, according to Computerworld Australia.

The switch in place currently came right off the standard HP manufacturing line with no serious modification, a fact which is sure to make HP marketing absolutely insufferable in pitching the durability of their switches. It was tested extensively in the high radiation conditions which it may experience, but apart from that feature I am not sure they are due any real bragging rights... I am sure the atmosphere in the ISS is much cleaner and better maintained than your average wiring closet in corporate America.

First, a question: do broad, generational stereotypes extend across different cultures? And if so, to what extent?

I ask because of this article in Silicon.com about "boring" IT curriculum turning off today's students and apparently discouraging many from seeking degrees in "hard" IT skills which are nonetheless still very much in demand in the marketplace. When I read it, I thought, "A-ha! More Millenial 'entertain me first, then we'll talk responsibility' fodder." But the article is discussing UK schools and industry, and I have no idea if they have the same "Millenial" perception over there as we do on this side of the pond.

Speaking of the perception on this side, Larry Dignan questions whether or not any of those stereotypes will hold true as the generation comes of working age and meets the realities of the business world. Reacting to a spate of articles recently calling for IT departments to adapt to the new and changing workforce (in particular, this post from Jason Hiner. I've also addressed similar missives before, here), he postulates that every generation, or most, has been touted as something new and different that will change the face of business by their attitudes and demands, and that this has never been borne out on any large scale when tested against the monolith of American enterprise. As Larry puts it,

Ultimately these people have to get jobs-and often these jobs are at places like Johnson & Johnson and General Electric. Sorry folks you won't be bringing your own management practices-and latest greatest Web 2.0 apps-to those places.

That's probably true, but I wonder at the idea that American business can somehow force entire generations into a mold. Larry also discusses how Gen X was supposed to change the face of business, and didn't, but I wonder if that's true. Could it be that many of the revolutionary changes in business which are traditionally ascribed simply to changing technology are in fact as much to do with the people using it as the tech itself? I think Larry may be missing the larger picture here. If he agrees that technology can be transformative, then I would argue that it can't happen in a vacuum. People are always the most important part of a process, even one involving information technology. The PC revolution in business was largely bottom-up at first; individuals and departments brought in desktop machines under the noses of the corporate bureacracy. Today they're everywhere. If things work, corporations (even GE and Johnson & Johnson) can be remarkably adaptable to the conceptions of their staff.

If us Gen X "slackers" had no effect on corporate America, then what's up with all the perks and benefits which are now de rigeur even in non-tech workplaces? Did corporations just start offering these out of the goodness of their heart? Or were they driven by a workforce with different expectations? I just read an article in a local business magazine with the now common theme of "Best Places to Work" in our area. Even the accounting firms are offering flextime, fruit baskets, and foosball tables. Workers move around between employers in ways that earlier generations never did, and you can't tell me that has not changed the practices of the average corporation. Retention is a word that Gen X drove into the corporate lexicon.

The interesting question to me isn't whether or not the perceptions of a generation can change the workplace (I believe, unlike Larry, that they can) but whether or not the particular perceptions of the Millenials can do so. After all, we're not just talking about a predilection for Facebook and a love of foosball; many of the complaints have to do with attitudes that are absolutely antithetical to many business practices which conventional wisdom holds dear: their supposed failings in professionalism, responsibility, and initiative run head-long into what many of us assume successful businesses require. If this is so, then either they will adapt, or they will drive businesses into the ground, a possibility Larry does not much examine. And possibly the enterprise will avoid this through sheer bulk and inertia. But those factors are already have a real effect in small and medium businesses, and it seems likely large businesses may be feeling them as well, even if they are too large to yet show the signs.

My thinking is that the actual effect won't necessarily be the molding of Gen Y to corporate standards, just as Gen X never completely integrated into the workplace of our fathers. Surely, their will be some accomodation on both sides, and businesses will no doubt freely adopt such free-form technologies from the Millenials as suit their purpose just as Millenials may be trained to show up on time and get by without constant positive reinforcement. But can you teach initiative? Can you dispose of entitlement? I think these attitudes, whether overly generalized or not, are not easily eradicated. I think that the outcome isn't going to be the assimilation of Gen Y seamlessly into the corporate monolith, but rather an aging and migration of the workforce. Is it a coincidence that off-shoring and outsourcing have exploded as the Millenials have entered the workforce? Traditional corporate America knows good work when it sees it, and if foreign workers can succeed where Millenials cannot, you'll be seeing more foreigners, not changed Millenials.

And I suppose that answers my first question in this post, doesn't it?

Indian off-shoring services giant Wipro will expand their existing product design services to include actual manufacturing of prototypes, according to CIO Magazine.

Wipro plans to work with third-party manufacturers to put together small prototype product runs, a responsibility which will be shifted to the customer should the product prove successful.

This is an excellent extension of traditional outsourcing services which makes a lot of sense by most traditional metrics; startup costs can be the most significant part of introducing a new product line for years and years, and with no guarantee of success, the company (particularly smaller companies without well-developed internal prototyping systems) can potentially defray considerable costs and much risks by outsourcing that segment of the product development cycle.

Concerns over IP control and time to market probably comprise most of the concern over outsourcing (and particularly off-shore outsourcing) of these services, but Wipro's reputation may be sufficiently well-developed to assuage these sorts of doubts among potential clients.

Just a quick link; Michael Krigsman of the IT Project Failures blog has a post up now with some analysis of Google's AppEngine failure that occured last week.

Krigsman believes that the failure is more substantive than some other analysts seem to think (see my previous post on the failure citing at least one example), from the perspective of discouraging development using the service, and notes that Google's wholly inadequate customer service system is thrown into relief by the problem and will exacerbate future adoption. This is much the same issue which caused Amazon so much grief during their initial problems with cloud services... not the failure itself, but the lack of communication and support. Google has never, for any product, offered particularly professional support services, but if they want to expand this offering they are going to have to figure out how to do so.

In a move which surely has Steve Ballmer tossing chairs around the office this week, China has announced that it will be investigating the Redmond company for every other major political entity's crime of choice these days: manipulative monopolistic business practices. In particular, the State Intellectual Property Office will be looking into software bundling, and discrimanatory pricing practices.

This had to be especially frustrating for Microsoft because China is one of those markets where the company has actually cut their pricing in order to combat software piracy. And the company has long been frustrated by the reluctance of the Chinese to significantly enforce IP laws to reduce piracy. It must seem like terrible bad faith to have your product ripped off egregiously, to then lower your pricing in an effort to accomodate the country's financial issues, only to then be told you're suspected of charging too much and may face sanctions.

Microsoft has said they will cooperate fully, which is what they always say, but I would love to be a fly on the wall at their first discussion with the IP Office. East meets West and cultures clash, no doubt.